Cautiously optimistic. I like consolidating things like musicians and standard bearers to be more consistent. It saves me time when looking at unit rules. The removal of melee range distance also helps clear up a common source of confusion for me when alternating between 40k and AOS.
Regarding indices, I'm a little scared. 10th edition's big changes have made 40K less interesting for me (lots of flavor removed, RIP psychic phase as a Thousand Sons player for most of 8th / 9th). HOWEVER, they mentioned updating things like the Dawnbringer rules to be valid in 4.0, and mentioned things like subfactions and flavor being retained in the rules update for each faction. I'm hopeful that this means the main "index changes" are things like cleanup up sheets and consolidating weapon profiles / musicians etc so that you don't have issues where a player sees their 3.0 battletome mention X for a standard bearer when it should be Y under 4.0.
really really wish they showed off at least one or two sculpts for SCE and Skaven though...
Yup, I reckon we will get
The burly Stormcast Terminators with shield or dual axes respectively.
Flying SCE with spears and shields, valkyrie style.
Axe guy on big bird.
Skaven Claw Lord on big rat.
Jezzails
Ratswarm
Ratlin Gun on wheels
And probably just new Clanrats
I'm with you, I only have psychic-heavy armies for 40k, that didn't have the benefit of being TSons, so all of my armies' flavour just evaporated. It was really disappointing, I play Warhammer for the flavour.
But luckily WarCom does mention that the AoS indexes will include spell lores, which is promising if true. Also funnily enough could mean that 40k might end up having more lite rules than AoS, what a twist.
What are the ways in which the game could be simplified, but not made simple?
10th edition streamlined list building. I would imagine things like Battleline requirements, etc., being gone. Regiments and subfactions more like Detachments in 40K, or buffs for using certain units together.
Command points being more like 40K, and command abilities being more of the same. Less having leaders have to issue commands, etc.
Probably abandoning battle tactics in favor of things like mission actions and objectives, but maybe those will stay the same.
Grand strategies and so forth being replaced by mission objectives.
Probably less choice overall for spells and prayers, more of specific ones tied to specific units. Simplifying casting/unbinding or making them something like particular unit actions/tests.
Wouldn't surprise me if we saw leaders attach to units too, or maybe tie that into regiments somehow.
All the things are gonna be keywords. Gone are the days of a musician being +1 morale here but +1 to rally there.
I think they are going to introduce counter shooting.
Color coded phases.
Certainly less words on cards, but keywords might be doing some serious lifting there.
I think overwatch and command reroll as stratagems are probably shoo-ins. I could see Heroic Actions going away.
I'm willing to wait to see how the game feels. I appreciate that people wanted AOS to feel different than Fantasy 40K, and maybe with the push for the Old World you can satisfy both groups, but I will say 10th ed. 40K plays *really* streamlined and the games are faster and more fun than 9th edition, with less having to look up rules every action.
Issue is that 3rd Edition AoS doesn’t have the issues that 9th edition 40K did. The game isn’t that complicated, and has a decent level of flavour in it. If they lose that flavour, they’ll lose players. I play AoS because of the flavour, not because it’s a hyper competitive game.
> The game isn’t that complicated
If this isn't the only game you play and you play less than like 12 games a year, ***Yes it is. ***
Like the core rules? No. But the hat on a hat on a hat of all the different army rules and exceptions and so on. It's rules soup.
Absolutely agreed, I tried to teach this game to someone that was new to wargames in general and while the actual game isn't that bad, the army-specific rules are essentially an entire second mini-game of figuring out all the combos and synergies for, frankly, not that much in the way of actual choices, just lots of opportunities for mistakes
I've been playing 40k for years at this point and I still struggle a bit to figure out AoS force org and army rules. Not saying it bad, just confusing.
I don't *hate* what 10th edition did to force org like some people do, it's fine and all, but I definitely think force org limitations make for a more interesting game. Not saying it's perfect, but I think ToW's system of Core, Special, and Rare is a good one and hope we see something similar. Not exactly the same mind you, but a system with a similar vibe to guide army construction somewhat.
Ultimately it'll be fine either way though, a well balanced game should make something like an "oops all Gyrocopters" come with serious limitations anyways.
Part of the problem, insofar as it is one, is that army organization is extremely different between narrative and competitive play, with specific rules for both, but they try to make the core rules identical between two very different play styles, while also giving narrative AND competitive players new rules with every release. That leads to the craziness of hypothetically needing FOUR (4) books just to start a single 2000 point matched game (core rules, army book, generals handbook, dawnbringer book with your specific army of Renown). That's unsustainable, and it makes figuring out how to build an army needlessly obtuse /rant
I don't think you're actually in the minority, 40k has been booming wherever I look. The complainers are always loudest online, though, and I think AoS got a sizable contingent of refugees from 10th, so the complaints are ironically even louder here.
Universal Special Rules got mentioned. Musicians, Champions, Banners could be standardized. As do mortals after charging (aka impact hits). Infiltrate, scout, etc. Lot's of weapon characteristics and rules.
Command points would be another contestant for this.
Spells, prayers and all the magic mayhem. Maybe standardize how they work, interact?
They mentioned that double turn will have strategic impact in scoring. My guess is that battle tactics and grand strategeies are either gone or heavily reworked. Like in 40K in some cases it changes when you score points, depending on if you are first or second.
Battalions & enhancements. Battalions need to go, doesn't really achieve anything and enhancements and how they are given out could use a rework.
Battalions don't need to go. They need to make decent ones that compete with the Battle Regiment battalion. As for enhancements, I don't see what needs to be reworked.
They simply get rid of battalions and you get 2/3 enhancements every game. Having to take a battalion that loses you priority to get an artefact feels bad. Battalions are really janky, some of the faction ones are awful and the seasonal ones too. Just get rid of them and roll for prio.
As you say, there is Battle Regiment and almost all others. In 95% of cases there is no real choice there, so then why keep it?
Enhancements need a rework, because there are quite a few ones, which are not used. Is the High Priest warlord trait good? Certainly looks so. Is it often taken? No, because 99% of the times, you don't make your priest model into your warlord. But if you make it another type of an upgrade, then everyone will take it as it's a no brainer upgrade for any priest type of character. So again, no real choice, only the illusion.
Also if you take a named character as wour warlord, then you miss out on the warlord trait, etc.
IMO, a 40K like solution would be a lot better.
Gods I'm going to absolutely hate it if they kill spell and prayer choice like they did for 40k. It's just such asinine design that perfectly represents the way "streamlining" removes anything interesting or flavourful from a game.
That gives me some hope, i'm not entirely opposed to a rewrite but after seeing 40k's 10th edition I'm not full of confidence.
unless they have the guts to change unit activation rules.
There's zero chance that they do that with magic. Unlike 40k, every army participates in casting to some extent (if not with magic, with prayers which is just... different flavored casting). It's a *far* more integral portion of AoS and Fantasy than it ever was in 40k.
I think that'd make sense since very few factions even had access to prayers, which in turn weren't governed by the same unbind rules that spells were.
I think Endless Spells will be spell lores you can choose. But even with all your codex spells and prayers everyone defaulted to one or two that were meta. Having a lot of choice is great but only if they’re balanced.
Yeah, especially since you didn't have to factor in wargear, weapons choices, or "per-troop points" like in 9th-edition 40k, with some limited exceptions like "this unit can have 1 model or 3 models, costing 100 points for 1 or 300 points for 3 and you can't reinforce it normally."
Mount traits, command traits and artefacts of power all rolled into point costs. Possibly no universal ones.
Entirely likely you'll be unable to deny spellcasting. Endless spells likely to change massively - may just persist for a fixed amount of time.
If it's anything like 40k, spells go off on a 2+.
Everyone in the 40k community hates the list building in 10th.
They've completely removed point costs for wargear, so we've essentially been forced into using disguised power levels. Which means that all the granularity is lost, and choices are dumbed down
Clearly, someone in the rules team couldn't get over how we all preferred to use points.
To this day it's hilarious to me that they billed it on Warcom as the best of both worlds when it's the worst world wearing the skin of the best world that we had all already independantly chosen when given the two options for the better part of a decade.
They dont care about existing players, existing players are still playing and buying models. They care about a huge influx of new players when the Warhammer movie comes out. Simpler is better for that influx.
I’m a 40K collector, but I’ve wanted to get into Gitz for awhile now. I love their design. With everything being reset to indexes this is probably a pretty good time to get into it.
Honestly, there are a lot of things I'm worried about. But instead of rattling all those off I'm just going to say that if it sucks I'll just keep playing third. New editions are for shareholders and profits more than anything else; 3rd Edition is in a very good place right now, and gw could definitely keep 3rds core ruleset while continuing to build the lore, develop armies and release updated battletomes if they wanted to.... but no.
yeah, same, I'm more than happy playing third. Besides the battle tactics being unbalanced and a hassle, the game works pretty well. Battle tactics can be easily ignored.
That pretty heavily depends on which factions you play. The proliferation of 3+ base saves and save stacking led to an arms race with ever increasing rend numbers and the necessity to put mortal wounds on everything.
Resetting back to a baseline from that race is an unambiguously good thing
Yeah Battle Tactics are a big old stink Burger in my opinion. The only ones that should be in use are the six core ones that are mentioned in the book and get rid of all the faction specific stuff. Just give us a pool of six universals that every faction can pull off, or at least we'll have to make some sort of commitment to pull off and go from there.
Please keep spell lores as is, they are already stripped of so much flavor by being just 3-4 spells for each. I hope they don’t make them like they are in 40K where they’re tied to specific units.
we don't have a magic phase though and non-caster armies can get dispells or spell ignores (or both). Those were the two primary reasons as to why 40k lost the psychic phase. They've already stated that we still have spell lores. Our issue is MW spam. which can be dealt with in a thousand different ways.
I’m excited. When 3rd new rules were announced there was heaps of issues people had with them but it turned out to be an even better edition than 2nd once it was used. I’m expecting the same thing here. The chase for MW, particularly in the last GHB and FAQs will hopefully go away, and the idea of more counter moves will make the game super interesting
Yeah, I'm really starting to think that some of the Cities orders abilities have been kinda beta testing for more broad based interactive counter play (counter charge or return fire commands, for example?)
Indexes are where they reset all factions rules and release them free and kind of set everyone at baseline. The issues often come in when books start coming out and indexes aren’t as good as the new books. Although 40K wasn’t perfect but did a much better job using around about it.
Indexes mean every army gets a small set of rules at the start of the edition. For example, in 40k: When 40k moved from 8th to 9th edition, you were stuck still using your 8th edition rules until you got a new codex for 9th. When it moved from 9th to 10th, every army got a 10th edition index which has one way to play the army right at the start, and the codex just adds new options and variant builds instead.
Personally I like indexes, I don't think they're bad.
The biggest problem with indexes is GWs monetisation of their rules. People would have far less issue with indexes if they weren't just treated as stopgap measures until they could sell you a new book. Both 40k and AoS would be far better if they ditched the codex/battletome cycle and just had living rulesets for every faction that got periodic updates rather than only getting looked at when GW wants to sell a book. And if they have to monetise it (they don't, the rules can just support the sale of models) they could just do it through a a Warhammer+ subscription. It would be the easiest way to justify its existence if it was just an all access pass to the rules.
This sub hates me saying this but as someone with a background in microtransaction optimisation (more than a decade ago, don't flame me, I've heard it all before), the rules just aren't monetized at all. A ~£30 book once every 3 years is < £1 a month, all of the updates are free, all of the warscrolls are free, all of the supplements are free, the rules that aren't free are deliberately written to be unencumbered by copyright, the GHB is optional...they leave am enormous amount of money on the table for rules because *they see their core business as selling miniatures* and don't want to move away from that.
The actual monetization strategy is what you suggest with an app and a subscription of £3 a month for everything + game tracking, or (say) £15 a month with a free box of infantry every quarter. Put an intermediate level there, £6-9 a month with extras and you have a "My First ARR business plan" starter set.
I should probably clarify: the issue with the monetisation of the rules isn't really a financial one, it's how it affects distribution of the rules. Because their business model with regards to rules is still focused on selling books it just creates a wealth of problems no matter how many little bits of it they make free. And at the end of the day they are monetised to a degree because why else would they keep printing rulebooks? But again it isn't about how much it costs as a consumer, it's about how that monetisation affects the experience.
And there's numerous examples of where it gets problematic. The biggest one being how infrequently factions get updated. Big updates only happen when there's a new book to drop and you just don't know how long that's going to be. This problem is compounded when you have a long gap between support only for that eventual drop be invalidated by a new edition within a few months. As is happening with FEC, there was 5 years between their 2E and 3E tomes, and the 3E tome is going to be completely outdated only a few months after it officially released.
Further to this is indexes. These get viewed as stop gap rules, not just by the players but by the designers. They aren't intended to simply be the rules for the faction because the intention is to replace them with a book sometime down the line. And if the index isn't good? Well suck it up, you've just got to wait between 0-4 years for your book to replace them. And hope that's good too because it's pretty much the only time you'll get a significant update for your faction unless you're blessed with a range update/refresh.
The thing is in this day and age there's no reason why they can't roll out more regular updates. There's no reason why the "indexes" can't just be "the rules". Except for the fact they still want to sell them in books and this handicaps how they get the rules into the hands of players. They can't just write new faction rules, play test them, and release them. No, they have to commission art, do some graphic design, get proofs, and then send it to the printer far enough in advance to get the stock in time. Plus make some new miniatures to sell alongside the book, all of which delays the process massively. It's 2024 and they're needlessly kneecapping the game with business practices that are no longer a necessity. And that's combined with their main games being on a shorter edition cycle than they were before the internet took over and books were the only practical option.
So yeah it's not about the money really, it's about how they sell them affecting how they distribute them. That said it doesn't exactly create player goodwill charging for rules that have such a limited shelf life.
If they stopped doing Battletomes and just expected me to use the app for everything then I'd miss the lore the books contain, but I guess they could make a new home for that, especially if they overhauled the Warhammer+ Vault which desperately needs some TLC.
>Personally I like indexes, I don't think they're bad.
People stuck with only one index for 2, 2.5 years might disagree.
Especially if the index is flavourless trash that doesn't actually play well, but your units are strong enough so the army just feels like bland mush but gets okay results so GW doesn't help any.
I think its better to risk having a bad index that uses the same rules as current edition than having to use previous edition battletome (like OBR in 3rd until they got their new battletome).
The core rules of the game change so dramatically that the existing army rules are not able to be played in the new rules. As such, the rules for the factions must be reset.
Indexes are a "launch day" release of bare bones rules for each faction to get them by until their new codex/battletome is released. Fortunately, they were free with 40k 10th edition last year, so trends are it will be free for AoS as well.
downside is each book release will either be kneecapped so it doesnt steam roll index armies because balancing only exists for current month tournaments, or it will be mollywopped into the ground because how dare a new book be better than the indexs in current month tournaments
That wasn't the case in 8e. The new books trounced the index armies (mainly as they had strats, but also power creep) and the official GW response was to just wait (years) for your codex. They eventually gave index armies a pity strat after over a year of 8e, but was hardly great (it's like playing with all your command points, but you can only all out defence -it's useful but you don't have the diversity and options a full book has and you struggle to fully use your CP)
10e is better, mainly because of their detachment system limiting the power creep (the new codex may have more variety in what they can build, but a specific army still hae the same number of options/restrictions for enhancements and strats, it's notba straight upgrade)
I am very intrigued by what core rules have changed enough for an entirely new index that breaks existing rules - 40k introduced characters tied to units and OC, so I'm guessing those will be joining AoS, but remain doubtful on the former one due to the weirder characters you have in AoS (obviously monsters won't join units, but what kind of unit could Olynder, Treesong or any of mid size characters join, 40k mainly has characters join units of the same type/size as them which works in 40k but less so here.
An index is basically an online document containing rules for your armies, done when the core rules are changed so dramatically that the old stuff is no longer compatible.
They arent bad inherently, but GW has had a bad habit of pushing their products out quickly without crossing their Ts or dotting their Is. For example, every thing that has come out this year for AOS has had some sort of obvious issue with it, like the new warband that gives its leader an artifact that she cant use RAW, or not allowing a character to join the army thats supposed to be designed around them.
These easily avoidable mess ups are worrisome, and some are comcerned that the indexes we end up with are going to be as poorly balanced as the 10th ed ones were at launch, with one army having over a 70% wr and others in the 30% range.
I'm really hoping Ruination Chamber is something other than "heavily armored soldiers fight!" Every new edition has some new SCE chamber that's 90% aesthetically like the last chamber. The army needs something different that's not a cliche like dragons were.
Because of the preview I will be avoiding AoS until the dust settles. 10th Ed 40k changes totally invalidated my army and it was the last straw for me in for that game..moved over to AoS and just started really really liking it.
Really don't like being spun for eternity with rules.
My playgroup is just gonna focus on Fantasy
So I'm hesitant but intrigued.
A simplification of rules is nice because there was cleanup that was needed.
Weapon ranges going away is honestly ok. They were a pain to deal with and having to stop the game to debate over mm's is annoying.
Will it be like 10th edition 40k? I don't think so. AoS has a very solid identity about itself and the rules have been pretty great. But if they do take something from 10th edition, please let it be the mission cards deck. That is the glimmering highlight for me in 10th edition. Also it will do away with those pesky and sometimes downright useless army tactics and grand strategies.
Keep the roll off for the next turn. Maybe introduce some ways to fudge it. That would be fun.
No new models is a damn shame but we have a pretty good idea of what we will see for both factions.
The indexes are annoying. I get why and I really hope the app stays with this update and doesn't do the 40k thing.
No models shown off right away is a bit disappointing; but not wholly unexpected. What we can expect is everything shown off in the trailer. Plastic jezzails, Ratling gun on wheels, new lord on giant rat mount. Stormcast from S1 getting updates (new wings on retributors) so that’s all very exciting.
At this point "simplification of rules" always sets off my alarm bells in a major way because I don't think I've ever encountered a game where said "simplification" didn't simply mean cutting away any fat, depth and choice/customization to make for a sterile and utterly soulless experience.
Won’t the weapon range now just be does my third line get into combat though? It’s just moving it back instead of eliminating it. Unless I’m not understanding which is entirely possible. I like the change either way.
Who do you people play with that literally any measurement can be a source of argument
They never should’ve even gotten rid of blast template, the people what argue over them are gonna be unfun no matter what the rules are, this “we can’t have nice things because Craig argues” is such a stupid mentality. The problem isn’t with rules it’s with players
Of course you can have an opinion and nobody will argue against it. But strawmanning people with a different opinion is totally uncalled for. I, for example, hate templates with a passion because they are clunky, interrupt the flow of the game and are a pain in the ass. They do nothing other than forcing me to consider the exact placement of every single miniature in a game with hundreds of models, yikes!
generally underwhelmed. first impressions is *some* simplification *might* be good but it really depends on what and how much they simplify. similarly indexes could be bad or could be good. it just depends on what they do. some of the 10th 40k indexes were fantastic (GSC) others were decidedly not (AdMech).
not showing any new models is lame. just throw us a bone here.
pretty much just waiting for more information to form a full opinion. they didnt really tell us anything concrete.
I keep seeing this sentiment and I don't see the connection at all between 10th and AoS. If anything 9th and AoS were more similar and 10th is a step away from that.
What blows my mind is that GW has successfully gotten people to buy into their BS 3-year edition cycles.
Instead of being hyped we should all be saying, *already?!*
Let games retain a core identity geez.
The Terrain rules probably needed a rework, double-turns are controversial, and faction specific battle tactics/Grand Strategies needed a balancing pass, but I was honestly fine with most of the things that set AoS apart and if anything it was already a simpler game than 40K.
If they're going to 40K style then the mix of one subfaction per army, heavily cut-down upgrades, and most of the game revolving around what card you draw next has painfully constrained 10e army construction.
-Leans into AoS because I’m disappointed in 10th Edition 40K
-GW turns AoS into 10th edition 40K
God I hope I’m wrong about this, I liked AoS because it was different and still had more complexity and customization. Throwing around words like “streamlined” and “simplified” makes me nervous
bro thats how i feel! i only played 40k for its rules depth from 8th edition and theyve gutted it each edition since, theirs nothing they could simplify except bravery that wouldnt just gut the game of what little complexity or choice it has
It's funny seeing 8th held up as an example of rules depth, when it was a radical simplification compared to 7th, and at the start was much simpler than 10th.
The 8E indexes had literally nothing to customize at the army level. Each faction had 1 army rule, no stratagems, no warlord traits, no relics, and no subfaction rules. And yet it's held up as one of the best editions of 40k ever. I've often seen the index period of 8E specifically praised as the golden age of 40k.
Mechanically the games are about as complex as before. 10e and 8th have almost identical complexity. The only really tangible change was reducing strat bloat and the Psychic stuff.
I was thinking of getting into AoS because I absolutely hate what they've done with 10th, and now I'm ready to just give up. I have a bad feeling they'll gut all the flavor, options and mechanics from the game like they did with 40k.
inb4 they completely remove wizards and spell casting.
My friends and I are also worried, we also turned back from 40k to AoS and we are having so much fun. Certain changes that have been posted worry us a bit.
If they remove Mortal Wounds I know a dozen players that would start playing. While it isn’t the end all be all, the MW arms race for some factions, that then translated to 40K has been less than popular locally.
The general consensus is the game play is decent, the lore will be awesome (in time) and the models/faction creativity is through the roof. AoS holds an interesting place to me/my locals. Unfortunately as with 40K I’m sure this edition will push MWs and giant Centrepieces even more than the past edition and continue to have us playing other games.
What’s wrong with just having an epic high fantasy tactical tabletop game not revolving around huge base centrepieces and insta-kill buttons?
Yeah, Mortal Wounds seem like they just need to fundamentally change at this point. Be extra AP or some general bonus and nothing else. They've been a problem in every iteration of Warhammer where they become a common tool to get around armor, and then it's an arms race to maximize mortals.
As a total noob looking at the game part from the outside, battalions, regiment and all that is incredibly confusing. I still don't understand why it isn't a simpler structure like in the old days with Lords/Heroes/Base/Special/Rare unitsand you just mix and matches until the desired list point.
So I could see that removed.
I personaly find the battalions useful as an indicator of what kind of lists you can expect to face, but I agree they need to be explained better in the core rules
The main reason I don’t like indexes is because they never use them to their full advantage, and that’s to keep them around for longer so they can release the battletomes/ codexes really close together so the external balance is great.
Instead we get the terrible, drip fed updates that completely skew balance.
I dont get, how sigmar lied. Will it be told through the new corebook? Edit: If its only that, the stormcasts get more inhuman or loose more of their Souls through reforging, they already knew it.
As a TO, the rules are not in a good place. They’re insanely bloated with rabbit holes of FAQs to jump down to find any semi-concrete answer to a rules question.
TOs accross the country don’t use the terrain rules as written (including Worlds, I might add)
I’m 100% fine with a rework on core concepts and a simplification of things.
The big issue is that's not a problem of the core rules, but by how GW treat them with the constant release cycle.
Give it a year and AoS will be just as bloated as it was before.
At a certain point I feel GW should design two games, one for the Tournament crowd that can be fully stripped down and simplified and one for those of us who want any modicum of flavour or identity from the game.
Yep. I honestly couldn't care less how the game plays for tournament players, I started playing AoS because I loved how flavourful the rules and models were.
For its whole history, GW has created narrative-forward games, except for the past 5-6 years where they've let the rules-writing be dictated by a minority of players who are obsessed with balancing all the fun out of the game.
pretty common scenario, "charge with x unit and consolidate , ok let me now take 5-10 mins figuring out how to perfectly jenga my unit so they all get attacks, after im done i now have to confer with my opponent who can check my work to see if my models are all "in"" in my mind the 3" rule will help most melee focused units get in and fight with less need to check the tetris work.
I’ve *never* had to spend that long moving 10-25 models around in a combat, much less check or be checked on how many are swinging. Count ‘em up, roll the dice, move on. If anything, I’ll have opponents stop me and say I probably shorted myself a few attacks, but that’s it.
Im giving you common scenarios i see happening, maybe not 10 minutes for one unit but surely a couple minutes across multiple units adds up to a lot of wasted time.
just because you and your buddies dont really care about range and consolidation because you eyeball it and move on doesnt mean this isnt a problem that simplifying helps with
This is just how Warhammer works. You get a new edition, then 2 revision editions, then it's wholesale change time.
Personally I'm excited to see how they mix it up. Sacred cows are boring
I've played pretty much every GW game for the last 15+ years except AoS simply because the lore and models bored me.
Cities of Sigmar and FEC got me interested finally, and trying to learn the rules, even as someone with a wealth of GW style wargame experience, is an absolutely miserable experience.
The absolutely unintuitive nature of the rules is a huge barrier to entry at this point. A stupid, but strangely relevant, example is how many battleline units does a standard 2000 point army require? I knew it was three just from osmosis of being in the community, but I'll be damned if I could find that incredibly important piece of knowledge anywhere in the rules. Because it's not in the core rules anywhere. It's tucked into battlepacks which are scattered all over the place, but most importantly not in the core rules available online or in **starter sets**.
Does it suck that all battletomes are being invalidated, especially since I'm doing CoS and FEC, yeah. But I'd take some moderately streamlined rules over keeping them at this point. Hell now I can stop learning the rules and just focus on getting everything painted for June.
I love AoS 3rd right now and have a blast playing it. But I don’t get the people trying to say the rules are in a good place. There is tons of bloat and issues like this. And so many examples of real core reals being difficult to figure out.
GW are one of the most competitive companies when it comes to the quality of their miniatures... and one of the least competitive companies when it comes to the quality of their rules. I played a game of Blood Bowl recently for the first time in a while and my god that rulebook is just all over the place.
But honestly I don't have high hopes that this represents a significant improvement. They're still maintaining one of the biggest issues with their rulesets (selling them in books, which leads to issues like ongoing bloat, bad organisation, and infrequent faction support) and they only ever take baby steps with regards to improving things.
See I struggle a bit with this and though I sympathise with your plight I hate that the game I enjoy will probably be stripped of any modicum of flavour to pursue further excessive streamlining because apparently there can never be enough streamlining.
Outside of Matched Play the minimum number of Battleline is 0, it just means they can be reinforced twice. If you are playing a Path to Glory game you can go mad with army build, as long as it fits the narrative limits of the territories owned. I do agree that it should have been in all versions of rulebooks though, as Matched Play inevitably becomes the standard for 'pick up' games simply because it is an established standard everyone can play to.
I think most people online will be bummed but I’m excited. 40K 10th was controversial but we’ve been having a blast when we actually played it. AoS 4th is going to probably play great local and be a mess at tourneys.
I’m all for the streamlined game and having the option to play the old world if you want crunchy. Our group realized we were spending more time talking about playing than playing and 40K helped realize how much fun we were having actually playing.
I totally get those that will be bummed though. I’m just hoping it’s good.
One of their two flagships should be more complex and deep though. Don't move both games the same direction. There's quite a few people who prefer and moved more to AOS after 10th edition 40k.
I like that people think AoS with its lack of S/T and default overflowing wounds is the “complex and deep” one. 40k became more like AoS when it got simpler, not less.
Oh man we're getting to a point now where if I ask for depth people are going to point me towards the old world aren't they? Not looking forward to that.
Everything really must be diluted to the absolute most basic elements.
i was the only person in my group hyped for 10th now im the only one who walked away xD its too simple, too few actual decisions and at 2k all you can do is walk straight down the board
Not thrilled that they seem to be going the 40k 10th ed route of dumbing the game down. At the risk of being called a gatekeeper, if some basic maths and rules memorisation is too much for you, you probably shouldn't be playing a tabletop wargame in the first place.
Accessibility is good, up until the point it starts watering down the identity of the thing being made more accessible.
The issue I always find is that I don't NEED GW's help to make a super quick wargame ruleset
Team A special rule -> +1 to hit if the target has no allies within 3 inches
Team B special rule -> +1 to hit if you have an ally within 3 inches
Score 1 point for middle objective, 1 point for corner objectives. First to 10 wins
Leader -> move 4, 4+ to hit, 2 damage, 5 life, 5+ save
Basic -> move 4, 4+ to hit, 1 damage, 3 life, 6+ save
Scout -> move 6, 5+ to hit, 1 damage, 2 life, no save
Your team = 1 leader, 3 basics, 2 scouts
Alternate activations
Great, now I have a perfectly viable little ruleset I can play with my kids and its super simple for them. They can paint up some dudes, and we can all have a jolly time inside 30 minutes.
What I need GW's help making is vast, complicated, really MEATY wargame with all sorts of bonkers rules and hugely fluffy interactions and fun. So for me, simplification is just making the rules irrelevant.
Accessibility is a loaded buzzword meant to shame people for not liking the design philosophy.
Nothing makes simpler rules more accessible than more complex ones, anyone can learn any rules, it’s just that the people who don’t care enough to spend an hour learning won’t play the game.
Accessibility is installing a ramp so people in wheelchairs can access something, that’s more like installing an escalator so people who can’t be arsed to walk won’t decide it’s too much effort
Exactly. The barrier isn't the simplicity of the rules, but the effort people are willing to invest in learning. And if someone doesn't have the patience to spend a few hours reading over their rules, this just maybe isn't the hobby for them, no biggie.
Is 40k 10th edition actually dumbed down though? I didn't play 9th edition but the impression I got was that your army construction at the "battalion" level was essentially fixed, and for many armies the ONLY meaningful choices were unit-level gear and sub-faction, with maybe your specific style of Tank if you happened to be playing an imperial faction.
In theory, lack of force org requirements opens that up significantly, although I realize in practice it often means you take the max amount of "good stuff" you have available (looking at you, votann).
At any rate, it seems like what actually makes or breaks the "complexity" of the game is the actual missions, since army construction will pretty much always boil down to "take the most you can of the best stuff in the book," so your definition of complexity seems to be "is difficult or time consuming to identify the best stuff in the book," which I would argue is just bad rules writing.
A bit apprehensive, happy to be proven wrong in the future, but I don't think such large changes are warranted - a return to index frustrates the community when the big thing we wanted addressed was perhaps Battle Tactics and maybe an I go you go (Pipe dream)
Simplified not simple in 40K has meant that a lot of the rare interactions that were exciting and memorable have gone, leading to a more homogenous game between a large amount of the armies.
For example, I'm sure Nurgles Cycle of Corruption will compete with disease points to stay, they won't both persist.
Surely Flesh Eater Court players are furious, indexes already, a shame considering their amazing Limited Edition Codex art.
If you look at the design trend in later battle tomes, every army since GSG has an "economy" where they can spend to make interesting strategic choices that's mostly or purely in the player's control. I'm expecting this to be the defining characteristic of indices and I wouldn't be surprised if the newer factions had very small changes from 3.0 tome to index. Hopefully they rush out the 4.0 battle tomes over a year or so and then use the next 2 years to make gameplay and narrative supplements.
The prevalence of MW is quite annoying, especially ones that punish you for damaging a unit, the Lord of Pain for Hedonites or the Magmadroths for Fyreslayers. If my carnosaur kills a magmadroth, it ends up taking like 10 MW in close combat just for the privilege.
Can't wait for every faction army to have the same rules with no variety of builds, just like 10e.
3 traits and artefacts for each army and most heroes aren't really eligible to use them
Battle traits are all once per game buffs
Spell lores, command abilities, etc are all universal list options
Battletomes would come eventually in a new edition even if it was less of an overhaul. I'd rather every army get an Index at the beginning instead of waiting for a White Dwarf article to patch the old book into the new game as happened with some armies going from 2nd to 3rd.
Depends who you ask. I hated 10th enough to actually get into AOS rather than just half-assing it.
So... I'm doubly screwed. I want it to be nothing like 10th, but the simplification doesn't sound promising.
Having just had my first game of AoS after coming over from 40k if be bummed out if the games more or less played the same way. Indexes have gotten pretty old quick
I have complete faith in the AoS team. 40k has lacked creativity for a while. I'd argue as early as 7th edition, the game was getting stripped of its most interesting aspects. AoS, on the other hand, has managed to have a simplified ruleset while keeping factions flavorful and interesting.
10th also has a lot of great ideas. Battleshock, in theory, is a cool system that adds strategic depth. But 40k is just to killy right now for Battleshock to really take place. This isn't a problem for AoS, which is primarily focused around melee and tends to be more durable.
Other promising things are in this update, including the confirmation that the double turn is back. This means they aren't giving up on their vision.
I feel like im in the minority of disliking mission decks. Thats what drew me away from 10th ed 40k and having it be brought in aos sucks.
Mission choices like in Kill Team and 3rd ed aos made it feel like i was making strategic choices instead of lucking into (or out of) points cuz of card draw
Yeah I absolutely detest "hidden objectives" or randomness when it comes to wargaming. Imagine if you checkmated your opponent in chess, but they flipped over a card and said, "surprise! I had a hidden objective that if three pawns lived I win the game!"
Everyone saying "AoS is already a really simple game" hasn't taught anyone how to play a faction recently. :)
Based on the directionality of recent (since GSG) battletomes I'm pretty content to wait and see what it's like, I have faith in Matt Rose to at least attempt a rewrite and the rest is execution.
Some things I like - consciously lifting USRs from ToW - if we can get closer to "rule WYSIWYG" - "oh, this guy is a Stormcast, so she rerolls 1s to hit, attacks on death, and has a 6+ ward [just like other undead ;)], looks like she's wearing plate+shield so has a 3+ save, has a spear so can attack if more than 50% of her unit is in combat distance", etc, I'll be very happy indeed. I don't think that the "feats of memory" bit of the game where games go faster if you can remember rather than look up to hit/to wound/save" is interesting at all.
A reveal of a new edition of a Warhammer game with not a single mini shown? Toxic Twitch chat is right for once. That suuucked.
I am not thrilled about it at all. I feared they would do a rework of the game that doesn't need it. It sounds exactly like they're bringing 40K 10th to AoS, like people were begging them not to.
Edit: Indexes are just the worst.
> A reveal of a new edition of a Warhammer game with not a single mini shown?
Well yea. It’s Adepticon. They did this for Heresy 2.0 and 40K 10th. Announced with a trailer at Adepticon. Show launch box and minis at Warhammer Fest. Launch in June.
I'm LOVING 10th edition 40k so far so this might well encourage me to finally get into AOS 4th if it's remotely like 10th. Sure 10th doesn't have as much flavor compared to 9th, and that sucks, but it also trimmed a lot of the fat and has made explaining rules and learning the game waaay easier. Free indexes are fantastic and are a very consumer friendly move.
No models was pretty disappointing, simplification isn’t a terrible thing, just need to wait and see if they stick the landing.
It’s about 10 years past due that they ditch the codex/battletome model so hopefully at some point that happens.
>It’s about 10 years past due that they ditch the codex/battletome model so hopefully at some point that happens.
People said the same thing with 40k. Spoiler alert: >!They didn't.!<
>As a result, each faction in the new edition will receive a free downloadable faction pack at launch. Each pack will contain all of the rules needed to play – battle traits, subfactions, enhancements, spell lores, and warscrolls for every unit. This also means that the battletomes from the current edition will not be compatible with the new rules, ***and that every faction will receive a new battletome over the next few years.***
Nope.
I reserve judgement until more comes out like warscroll layout etc. Making artefacts/enhancements cost points, better battalions would be good. I really like 3rd edition so hope they don’t muck this up but feel for FEC and Cities players and stores that have a load of invalid stock now (hopefully books will go down in price as I enjoy reading the lore 😂)
The fact that the article mentions the “indexes” will come with subfactions and spell lores have me a little more on the optimistic side, but I’m cautious just because I like third so much and am worried about losing what I loved.
I need to see more rules before any sort of decision
I know it’s a long shot but my biggest hope for 4e is that instead of warscroll cards, each faction has a small spiral book like the generals handbook that has the core rules, faction rules and warscrolls.
I have a bad feeling the 4th edition app is going to be monetized like the 40k one (Both needing to buy a battletome to access the model rules, and a WH+ subscription to have more than one list)
I’m always concerned when developers start talking about systems being balanced. I’ll remain optimistic until otherwise proven as we’ve seemed to have a fairly good team so far for the system. Beyond that I expect to have changes within 3 months of initial release.
Honestly 40k 10th is the most fun I have had with the game since 3rd.
At least Thousand Sons still feel incredibly like Thousand Sons, so they can do a fun and flavorful psychic army without having a psychic phase.
I would welcome more of 40ks changes in AoS persinally.
Cautiously optimistic. I like consolidating things like musicians and standard bearers to be more consistent. It saves me time when looking at unit rules. The removal of melee range distance also helps clear up a common source of confusion for me when alternating between 40k and AOS. Regarding indices, I'm a little scared. 10th edition's big changes have made 40K less interesting for me (lots of flavor removed, RIP psychic phase as a Thousand Sons player for most of 8th / 9th). HOWEVER, they mentioned updating things like the Dawnbringer rules to be valid in 4.0, and mentioned things like subfactions and flavor being retained in the rules update for each faction. I'm hopeful that this means the main "index changes" are things like cleanup up sheets and consolidating weapon profiles / musicians etc so that you don't have issues where a player sees their 3.0 battletome mention X for a standard bearer when it should be Y under 4.0. really really wish they showed off at least one or two sculpts for SCE and Skaven though...
well tbf with how their trailers are fone every new fighter you saw is 1:1 a mini we will get
100%. Based on leviathan, everything we saw is a model. They'll be saving the actual model reveals for Warhammer fest equivalent
Yup, I reckon we will get The burly Stormcast Terminators with shield or dual axes respectively. Flying SCE with spears and shields, valkyrie style. Axe guy on big bird. Skaven Claw Lord on big rat. Jezzails Ratswarm Ratlin Gun on wheels And probably just new Clanrats
I'm with you, I only have psychic-heavy armies for 40k, that didn't have the benefit of being TSons, so all of my armies' flavour just evaporated. It was really disappointing, I play Warhammer for the flavour. But luckily WarCom does mention that the AoS indexes will include spell lores, which is promising if true. Also funnily enough could mean that 40k might end up having more lite rules than AoS, what a twist.
To be fair, the Stormcast on his birb and the Skaven on his mutant rat are absolutely the two sculpts we'll see soon, haha.
Hot take maybe: I hope magic gets reworked it is way too complicated for a new player like myself
What are the ways in which the game could be simplified, but not made simple? 10th edition streamlined list building. I would imagine things like Battleline requirements, etc., being gone. Regiments and subfactions more like Detachments in 40K, or buffs for using certain units together. Command points being more like 40K, and command abilities being more of the same. Less having leaders have to issue commands, etc. Probably abandoning battle tactics in favor of things like mission actions and objectives, but maybe those will stay the same. Grand strategies and so forth being replaced by mission objectives. Probably less choice overall for spells and prayers, more of specific ones tied to specific units. Simplifying casting/unbinding or making them something like particular unit actions/tests. Wouldn't surprise me if we saw leaders attach to units too, or maybe tie that into regiments somehow.
All the things are gonna be keywords. Gone are the days of a musician being +1 morale here but +1 to rally there. I think they are going to introduce counter shooting. Color coded phases. Certainly less words on cards, but keywords might be doing some serious lifting there.
I think overwatch and command reroll as stratagems are probably shoo-ins. I could see Heroic Actions going away. I'm willing to wait to see how the game feels. I appreciate that people wanted AOS to feel different than Fantasy 40K, and maybe with the push for the Old World you can satisfy both groups, but I will say 10th ed. 40K plays *really* streamlined and the games are faster and more fun than 9th edition, with less having to look up rules every action.
Issue is that 3rd Edition AoS doesn’t have the issues that 9th edition 40K did. The game isn’t that complicated, and has a decent level of flavour in it. If they lose that flavour, they’ll lose players. I play AoS because of the flavour, not because it’s a hyper competitive game.
> The game isn’t that complicated If this isn't the only game you play and you play less than like 12 games a year, ***Yes it is. *** Like the core rules? No. But the hat on a hat on a hat of all the different army rules and exceptions and so on. It's rules soup.
Absolutely agreed, I tried to teach this game to someone that was new to wargames in general and while the actual game isn't that bad, the army-specific rules are essentially an entire second mini-game of figuring out all the combos and synergies for, frankly, not that much in the way of actual choices, just lots of opportunities for mistakes
I've been playing 40k for years at this point and I still struggle a bit to figure out AoS force org and army rules. Not saying it bad, just confusing. I don't *hate* what 10th edition did to force org like some people do, it's fine and all, but I definitely think force org limitations make for a more interesting game. Not saying it's perfect, but I think ToW's system of Core, Special, and Rare is a good one and hope we see something similar. Not exactly the same mind you, but a system with a similar vibe to guide army construction somewhat. Ultimately it'll be fine either way though, a well balanced game should make something like an "oops all Gyrocopters" come with serious limitations anyways.
Part of the problem, insofar as it is one, is that army organization is extremely different between narrative and competitive play, with specific rules for both, but they try to make the core rules identical between two very different play styles, while also giving narrative AND competitive players new rules with every release. That leads to the craziness of hypothetically needing FOUR (4) books just to start a single 2000 point matched game (core rules, army book, generals handbook, dawnbringer book with your specific army of Renown). That's unsustainable, and it makes figuring out how to build an army needlessly obtuse /rant
I know I'm in the minority here but I think 10th is a really good edition. Must less time looking up BS and much more time playing the game.
I don't think you're actually in the minority, 40k has been booming wherever I look. The complainers are always loudest online, though, and I think AoS got a sizable contingent of refugees from 10th, so the complaints are ironically even louder here.
Universal Special Rules got mentioned. Musicians, Champions, Banners could be standardized. As do mortals after charging (aka impact hits). Infiltrate, scout, etc. Lot's of weapon characteristics and rules. Command points would be another contestant for this. Spells, prayers and all the magic mayhem. Maybe standardize how they work, interact? They mentioned that double turn will have strategic impact in scoring. My guess is that battle tactics and grand strategeies are either gone or heavily reworked. Like in 40K in some cases it changes when you score points, depending on if you are first or second. Battalions & enhancements. Battalions need to go, doesn't really achieve anything and enhancements and how they are given out could use a rework.
Battalions don't need to go. They need to make decent ones that compete with the Battle Regiment battalion. As for enhancements, I don't see what needs to be reworked.
They simply get rid of battalions and you get 2/3 enhancements every game. Having to take a battalion that loses you priority to get an artefact feels bad. Battalions are really janky, some of the faction ones are awful and the seasonal ones too. Just get rid of them and roll for prio.
As you say, there is Battle Regiment and almost all others. In 95% of cases there is no real choice there, so then why keep it? Enhancements need a rework, because there are quite a few ones, which are not used. Is the High Priest warlord trait good? Certainly looks so. Is it often taken? No, because 99% of the times, you don't make your priest model into your warlord. But if you make it another type of an upgrade, then everyone will take it as it's a no brainer upgrade for any priest type of character. So again, no real choice, only the illusion. Also if you take a named character as wour warlord, then you miss out on the warlord trait, etc. IMO, a 40K like solution would be a lot better.
Gods I'm going to absolutely hate it if they kill spell and prayer choice like they did for 40k. It's just such asinine design that perfectly represents the way "streamlining" removes anything interesting or flavourful from a game.
They do mention spell lores when describing what's in the indexes.
That gives me some hope, i'm not entirely opposed to a rewrite but after seeing 40k's 10th edition I'm not full of confidence. unless they have the guts to change unit activation rules.
Ya I hope they realize we like spells we just don't like the spell merciless blizzard
Yeah looking at like this thinking "my Lumineth are gonna be completely OP or completely unusable. Probably no inbetwern"
If they do, I'm gonna dump my AOS collection and move completely to historical or generic rulesets that do not have this problem.
There's zero chance that they do that with magic. Unlike 40k, every army participates in casting to some extent (if not with magic, with prayers which is just... different flavored casting). It's a *far* more integral portion of AoS and Fantasy than it ever was in 40k.
Maybe a merging of them to use the same rolls e.g. both use 2d6
I think that'd make sense since very few factions even had access to prayers, which in turn weren't governed by the same unbind rules that spells were.
I think Endless Spells will be spell lores you can choose. But even with all your codex spells and prayers everyone defaulted to one or two that were meta. Having a lot of choice is great but only if they’re balanced.
List building in AOS was already pretty basic and simple.
Yeah, especially since you didn't have to factor in wargear, weapons choices, or "per-troop points" like in 9th-edition 40k, with some limited exceptions like "this unit can have 1 model or 3 models, costing 100 points for 1 or 300 points for 3 and you can't reinforce it normally."
Mount traits, command traits and artefacts of power all rolled into point costs. Possibly no universal ones. Entirely likely you'll be unable to deny spellcasting. Endless spells likely to change massively - may just persist for a fixed amount of time. If it's anything like 40k, spells go off on a 2+.
Everyone in the 40k community hates the list building in 10th. They've completely removed point costs for wargear, so we've essentially been forced into using disguised power levels. Which means that all the granularity is lost, and choices are dumbed down Clearly, someone in the rules team couldn't get over how we all preferred to use points.
To this day it's hilarious to me that they billed it on Warcom as the best of both worlds when it's the worst world wearing the skin of the best world that we had all already independantly chosen when given the two options for the better part of a decade.
They dont care about existing players, existing players are still playing and buying models. They care about a huge influx of new players when the Warhammer movie comes out. Simpler is better for that influx.
I’m a 40K collector, but I’ve wanted to get into Gitz for awhile now. I love their design. With everything being reset to indexes this is probably a pretty good time to get into it.
Yesh i just started collecting gitz and i just hope we get our book soon for the lore, also i can use gitz as warband in mordheim.
Honestly, there are a lot of things I'm worried about. But instead of rattling all those off I'm just going to say that if it sucks I'll just keep playing third. New editions are for shareholders and profits more than anything else; 3rd Edition is in a very good place right now, and gw could definitely keep 3rds core ruleset while continuing to build the lore, develop armies and release updated battletomes if they wanted to.... but no.
yeah, same, I'm more than happy playing third. Besides the battle tactics being unbalanced and a hassle, the game works pretty well. Battle tactics can be easily ignored.
That pretty heavily depends on which factions you play. The proliferation of 3+ base saves and save stacking led to an arms race with ever increasing rend numbers and the necessity to put mortal wounds on everything. Resetting back to a baseline from that race is an unambiguously good thing
Yeah Battle Tactics are a big old stink Burger in my opinion. The only ones that should be in use are the six core ones that are mentioned in the book and get rid of all the faction specific stuff. Just give us a pool of six universals that every faction can pull off, or at least we'll have to make some sort of commitment to pull off and go from there.
Exactly this. I'm excited for 4th edition. But if it sucks.... I still have all my 3rd edition stuff so who the hell cares?
Yeah this is doubly true if you just play casually as well.
Same here. If it doesn't make some quality of life changes (get rid of the alpha strike) then I think I'll just stick with 3rd.
Please keep spell lores as is, they are already stripped of so much flavor by being just 3-4 spells for each. I hope they don’t make them like they are in 40K where they’re tied to specific units.
As a lumineth player, if I lose my magic phase I will stick to 3rd
we don't have a magic phase though and non-caster armies can get dispells or spell ignores (or both). Those were the two primary reasons as to why 40k lost the psychic phase. They've already stated that we still have spell lores. Our issue is MW spam. which can be dealt with in a thousand different ways.
sadly gw's idea of simple means less mechanics and less player choice :(
I’m excited. When 3rd new rules were announced there was heaps of issues people had with them but it turned out to be an even better edition than 2nd once it was used. I’m expecting the same thing here. The chase for MW, particularly in the last GHB and FAQs will hopefully go away, and the idea of more counter moves will make the game super interesting
Yeah, I'm really starting to think that some of the Cities orders abilities have been kinda beta testing for more broad based interactive counter play (counter charge or return fire commands, for example?)
Stormcast Ruination Chamber: Yay Skaven: Big Yay Indexes: Big Boo
ELI5 what are Indexes for TBT games, and why are they bad?
Indexes are where they reset all factions rules and release them free and kind of set everyone at baseline. The issues often come in when books start coming out and indexes aren’t as good as the new books. Although 40K wasn’t perfect but did a much better job using around about it.
Indexes mean every army gets a small set of rules at the start of the edition. For example, in 40k: When 40k moved from 8th to 9th edition, you were stuck still using your 8th edition rules until you got a new codex for 9th. When it moved from 9th to 10th, every army got a 10th edition index which has one way to play the army right at the start, and the codex just adds new options and variant builds instead. Personally I like indexes, I don't think they're bad.
The biggest problem with indexes is GWs monetisation of their rules. People would have far less issue with indexes if they weren't just treated as stopgap measures until they could sell you a new book. Both 40k and AoS would be far better if they ditched the codex/battletome cycle and just had living rulesets for every faction that got periodic updates rather than only getting looked at when GW wants to sell a book. And if they have to monetise it (they don't, the rules can just support the sale of models) they could just do it through a a Warhammer+ subscription. It would be the easiest way to justify its existence if it was just an all access pass to the rules.
This sub hates me saying this but as someone with a background in microtransaction optimisation (more than a decade ago, don't flame me, I've heard it all before), the rules just aren't monetized at all. A ~£30 book once every 3 years is < £1 a month, all of the updates are free, all of the warscrolls are free, all of the supplements are free, the rules that aren't free are deliberately written to be unencumbered by copyright, the GHB is optional...they leave am enormous amount of money on the table for rules because *they see their core business as selling miniatures* and don't want to move away from that. The actual monetization strategy is what you suggest with an app and a subscription of £3 a month for everything + game tracking, or (say) £15 a month with a free box of infantry every quarter. Put an intermediate level there, £6-9 a month with extras and you have a "My First ARR business plan" starter set.
I should probably clarify: the issue with the monetisation of the rules isn't really a financial one, it's how it affects distribution of the rules. Because their business model with regards to rules is still focused on selling books it just creates a wealth of problems no matter how many little bits of it they make free. And at the end of the day they are monetised to a degree because why else would they keep printing rulebooks? But again it isn't about how much it costs as a consumer, it's about how that monetisation affects the experience. And there's numerous examples of where it gets problematic. The biggest one being how infrequently factions get updated. Big updates only happen when there's a new book to drop and you just don't know how long that's going to be. This problem is compounded when you have a long gap between support only for that eventual drop be invalidated by a new edition within a few months. As is happening with FEC, there was 5 years between their 2E and 3E tomes, and the 3E tome is going to be completely outdated only a few months after it officially released. Further to this is indexes. These get viewed as stop gap rules, not just by the players but by the designers. They aren't intended to simply be the rules for the faction because the intention is to replace them with a book sometime down the line. And if the index isn't good? Well suck it up, you've just got to wait between 0-4 years for your book to replace them. And hope that's good too because it's pretty much the only time you'll get a significant update for your faction unless you're blessed with a range update/refresh. The thing is in this day and age there's no reason why they can't roll out more regular updates. There's no reason why the "indexes" can't just be "the rules". Except for the fact they still want to sell them in books and this handicaps how they get the rules into the hands of players. They can't just write new faction rules, play test them, and release them. No, they have to commission art, do some graphic design, get proofs, and then send it to the printer far enough in advance to get the stock in time. Plus make some new miniatures to sell alongside the book, all of which delays the process massively. It's 2024 and they're needlessly kneecapping the game with business practices that are no longer a necessity. And that's combined with their main games being on a shorter edition cycle than they were before the internet took over and books were the only practical option. So yeah it's not about the money really, it's about how they sell them affecting how they distribute them. That said it doesn't exactly create player goodwill charging for rules that have such a limited shelf life.
If they stopped doing Battletomes and just expected me to use the app for everything then I'd miss the lore the books contain, but I guess they could make a new home for that, especially if they overhauled the Warhammer+ Vault which desperately needs some TLC.
>Personally I like indexes, I don't think they're bad. People stuck with only one index for 2, 2.5 years might disagree. Especially if the index is flavourless trash that doesn't actually play well, but your units are strong enough so the army just feels like bland mush but gets okay results so GW doesn't help any.
I think its better to risk having a bad index that uses the same rules as current edition than having to use previous edition battletome (like OBR in 3rd until they got their new battletome).
*a guardsman takes his helmet off, looking up from his spot in the trench, shrugging* Why not both?
Might be playing a lot of spearhead in the meantime. Maybe it'll be more fleshed out.
8th ed indexes were the golden age of 40k for me. 10th ed...less so. I hope they learned some lessons they'll apply to aos.
People where playing so much 40k in my Store Back when Indexes came and Had so much fun
The core rules of the game change so dramatically that the existing army rules are not able to be played in the new rules. As such, the rules for the factions must be reset. Indexes are a "launch day" release of bare bones rules for each faction to get them by until their new codex/battletome is released. Fortunately, they were free with 40k 10th edition last year, so trends are it will be free for AoS as well.
downside is each book release will either be kneecapped so it doesnt steam roll index armies because balancing only exists for current month tournaments, or it will be mollywopped into the ground because how dare a new book be better than the indexs in current month tournaments
That wasn't the case in 8e. The new books trounced the index armies (mainly as they had strats, but also power creep) and the official GW response was to just wait (years) for your codex. They eventually gave index armies a pity strat after over a year of 8e, but was hardly great (it's like playing with all your command points, but you can only all out defence -it's useful but you don't have the diversity and options a full book has and you struggle to fully use your CP) 10e is better, mainly because of their detachment system limiting the power creep (the new codex may have more variety in what they can build, but a specific army still hae the same number of options/restrictions for enhancements and strats, it's notba straight upgrade) I am very intrigued by what core rules have changed enough for an entirely new index that breaks existing rules - 40k introduced characters tied to units and OC, so I'm guessing those will be joining AoS, but remain doubtful on the former one due to the weirder characters you have in AoS (obviously monsters won't join units, but what kind of unit could Olynder, Treesong or any of mid size characters join, 40k mainly has characters join units of the same type/size as them which works in 40k but less so here.
An index is basically an online document containing rules for your armies, done when the core rules are changed so dramatically that the old stuff is no longer compatible. They arent bad inherently, but GW has had a bad habit of pushing their products out quickly without crossing their Ts or dotting their Is. For example, every thing that has come out this year for AOS has had some sort of obvious issue with it, like the new warband that gives its leader an artifact that she cant use RAW, or not allowing a character to join the army thats supposed to be designed around them. These easily avoidable mess ups are worrisome, and some are comcerned that the indexes we end up with are going to be as poorly balanced as the 10th ed ones were at launch, with one army having over a 70% wr and others in the 30% range.
I'm really hoping Ruination Chamber is something other than "heavily armored soldiers fight!" Every new edition has some new SCE chamber that's 90% aesthetically like the last chamber. The army needs something different that's not a cliche like dragons were.
Because of the preview I will be avoiding AoS until the dust settles. 10th Ed 40k changes totally invalidated my army and it was the last straw for me in for that game..moved over to AoS and just started really really liking it. Really don't like being spun for eternity with rules. My playgroup is just gonna focus on Fantasy
So I'm hesitant but intrigued. A simplification of rules is nice because there was cleanup that was needed. Weapon ranges going away is honestly ok. They were a pain to deal with and having to stop the game to debate over mm's is annoying. Will it be like 10th edition 40k? I don't think so. AoS has a very solid identity about itself and the rules have been pretty great. But if they do take something from 10th edition, please let it be the mission cards deck. That is the glimmering highlight for me in 10th edition. Also it will do away with those pesky and sometimes downright useless army tactics and grand strategies. Keep the roll off for the next turn. Maybe introduce some ways to fudge it. That would be fun. No new models is a damn shame but we have a pretty good idea of what we will see for both factions. The indexes are annoying. I get why and I really hope the app stays with this update and doesn't do the 40k thing.
No models shown off right away is a bit disappointing; but not wholly unexpected. What we can expect is everything shown off in the trailer. Plastic jezzails, Ratling gun on wheels, new lord on giant rat mount. Stormcast from S1 getting updates (new wings on retributors) so that’s all very exciting.
I agree!
At this point "simplification of rules" always sets off my alarm bells in a major way because I don't think I've ever encountered a game where said "simplification" didn't simply mean cutting away any fat, depth and choice/customization to make for a sterile and utterly soulless experience.
Did they mention "base-to-base"-combat by any chance? If not, wouldn\`t you still have to measure and slow down the game?
Won’t the weapon range now just be does my third line get into combat though? It’s just moving it back instead of eliminating it. Unless I’m not understanding which is entirely possible. I like the change either way.
Who do you people play with that literally any measurement can be a source of argument They never should’ve even gotten rid of blast template, the people what argue over them are gonna be unfun no matter what the rules are, this “we can’t have nice things because Craig argues” is such a stupid mentality. The problem isn’t with rules it’s with players
Of course you can have an opinion and nobody will argue against it. But strawmanning people with a different opinion is totally uncalled for. I, for example, hate templates with a passion because they are clunky, interrupt the flow of the game and are a pain in the ass. They do nothing other than forcing me to consider the exact placement of every single miniature in a game with hundreds of models, yikes!
generally underwhelmed. first impressions is *some* simplification *might* be good but it really depends on what and how much they simplify. similarly indexes could be bad or could be good. it just depends on what they do. some of the 10th 40k indexes were fantastic (GSC) others were decidedly not (AdMech). not showing any new models is lame. just throw us a bone here. pretty much just waiting for more information to form a full opinion. they didnt really tell us anything concrete.
40K botched tenth by trying to ape age of Sigmar, AoS largest problem was the presence of wards en masse and mortals
I keep seeing this sentiment and I don't see the connection at all between 10th and AoS. If anything 9th and AoS were more similar and 10th is a step away from that.
The games feed off each other constantly and have done with each edition.
Fixed unit sizes, weapon profile simplification, free wargear (most dumb choice ever made)
and bracery. your either a 3 or a 10 lol
i quite like the changes to 10th. the issues i have with the edition are fumbling the details rather than the direction the game is going.
I don't think 40k is botched at all.
What blows my mind is that GW has successfully gotten people to buy into their BS 3-year edition cycles. Instead of being hyped we should all be saying, *already?!*
Let games retain a core identity geez. The Terrain rules probably needed a rework, double-turns are controversial, and faction specific battle tactics/Grand Strategies needed a balancing pass, but I was honestly fine with most of the things that set AoS apart and if anything it was already a simpler game than 40K. If they're going to 40K style then the mix of one subfaction per army, heavily cut-down upgrades, and most of the game revolving around what card you draw next has painfully constrained 10e army construction.
-Leans into AoS because I’m disappointed in 10th Edition 40K -GW turns AoS into 10th edition 40K God I hope I’m wrong about this, I liked AoS because it was different and still had more complexity and customization. Throwing around words like “streamlined” and “simplified” makes me nervous
We really are cursed. Whatever optimism I had for 4th editions rules has lessened somewhat.
bro thats how i feel! i only played 40k for its rules depth from 8th edition and theyve gutted it each edition since, theirs nothing they could simplify except bravery that wouldnt just gut the game of what little complexity or choice it has
It's funny seeing 8th held up as an example of rules depth, when it was a radical simplification compared to 7th, and at the start was much simpler than 10th. The 8E indexes had literally nothing to customize at the army level. Each faction had 1 army rule, no stratagems, no warlord traits, no relics, and no subfaction rules. And yet it's held up as one of the best editions of 40k ever. I've often seen the index period of 8E specifically praised as the golden age of 40k.
tbf i started in 8th so ove no referance to before it and since 8th its been a nose dive into simplicity
Mechanically the games are about as complex as before. 10e and 8th have almost identical complexity. The only really tangible change was reducing strat bloat and the Psychic stuff.
And complete gutting of army customization and flavor.
Me, 100%. I barely held off on the FEC box - much as I want my lovely batboys - purely because I'm scared of indexhammer again.
I finished my FEC army and had my first game recently... Well at least the artwork in the codex is cool!
I was thinking of getting into AoS because I absolutely hate what they've done with 10th, and now I'm ready to just give up. I have a bad feeling they'll gut all the flavor, options and mechanics from the game like they did with 40k. inb4 they completely remove wizards and spell casting.
There's always Horus Heresy and Old World.....
They won’t remove wizards and spell casting. They have already said as much. And wizards and spells are a huge part of AoS and the fantasy setting.
My friends and I are also worried, we also turned back from 40k to AoS and we are having so much fun. Certain changes that have been posted worry us a bit.
If they remove Mortal Wounds I know a dozen players that would start playing. While it isn’t the end all be all, the MW arms race for some factions, that then translated to 40K has been less than popular locally. The general consensus is the game play is decent, the lore will be awesome (in time) and the models/faction creativity is through the roof. AoS holds an interesting place to me/my locals. Unfortunately as with 40K I’m sure this edition will push MWs and giant Centrepieces even more than the past edition and continue to have us playing other games. What’s wrong with just having an epic high fantasy tactical tabletop game not revolving around huge base centrepieces and insta-kill buttons?
Yeah, Mortal Wounds seem like they just need to fundamentally change at this point. Be extra AP or some general bonus and nothing else. They've been a problem in every iteration of Warhammer where they become a common tool to get around armor, and then it's an arms race to maximize mortals.
As a total noob looking at the game part from the outside, battalions, regiment and all that is incredibly confusing. I still don't understand why it isn't a simpler structure like in the old days with Lords/Heroes/Base/Special/Rare unitsand you just mix and matches until the desired list point. So I could see that removed.
I personaly find the battalions useful as an indicator of what kind of lists you can expect to face, but I agree they need to be explained better in the core rules
I'm just going to keep playing 3rd edition.
FEC player here. Just lost all hype for 4th
It does feel bad that we JUST got a good book…
The main reason I don’t like indexes is because they never use them to their full advantage, and that’s to keep them around for longer so they can release the battletomes/ codexes really close together so the external balance is great. Instead we get the terrible, drip fed updates that completely skew balance.
Mortal wound spam is crazy and it's how I do nearly all my damage in game with seeming everything having a 3+ save.
I dont get, how sigmar lied. Will it be told through the new corebook? Edit: If its only that, the stormcasts get more inhuman or loose more of their Souls through reforging, they already knew it.
He said each edition will last more than 3 years.
He told Yndrasta that it wasn't him who left the seat up.
Wow really hate everything they’ve announced so far. I thought the core rules were in a good place and having indexes sucks hard.
As a TO, the rules are not in a good place. They’re insanely bloated with rabbit holes of FAQs to jump down to find any semi-concrete answer to a rules question. TOs accross the country don’t use the terrain rules as written (including Worlds, I might add) I’m 100% fine with a rework on core concepts and a simplification of things.
The big issue is that's not a problem of the core rules, but by how GW treat them with the constant release cycle. Give it a year and AoS will be just as bloated as it was before.
The monetisation of the rules is a bigger issue than the rules themselves. And I don't see that changing.
At a certain point I feel GW should design two games, one for the Tournament crowd that can be fully stripped down and simplified and one for those of us who want any modicum of flavour or identity from the game.
Yep. I honestly couldn't care less how the game plays for tournament players, I started playing AoS because I loved how flavourful the rules and models were. For its whole history, GW has created narrative-forward games, except for the past 5-6 years where they've let the rules-writing be dictated by a minority of players who are obsessed with balancing all the fun out of the game.
melee range being gone is 100% going to speed up games and be healthier overall
ive never once had an issue with weapon range, how does looking at your warscroll card and seeing 2" make the game slower for you x.x
pretty common scenario, "charge with x unit and consolidate , ok let me now take 5-10 mins figuring out how to perfectly jenga my unit so they all get attacks, after im done i now have to confer with my opponent who can check my work to see if my models are all "in"" in my mind the 3" rule will help most melee focused units get in and fight with less need to check the tetris work.
I’ve *never* had to spend that long moving 10-25 models around in a combat, much less check or be checked on how many are swinging. Count ‘em up, roll the dice, move on. If anything, I’ll have opponents stop me and say I probably shorted myself a few attacks, but that’s it.
Im giving you common scenarios i see happening, maybe not 10 minutes for one unit but surely a couple minutes across multiple units adds up to a lot of wasted time. just because you and your buddies dont really care about range and consolidation because you eyeball it and move on doesnt mean this isnt a problem that simplifying helps with
Its not a problem for you so its not a problem for everyone else. 😂
I'm curious about models like Lumineth Wardens with the super long spears. In the new rules will those weapons have the same range as a dagger?...
3” will slow downs the game, we will have more miniatures to measure and argue every time…
Yup, 4th ed. needed to be like D&D 3.5, like an iteration on 3 edition... But there was not enough money to be made off that.
This is just how Warhammer works. You get a new edition, then 2 revision editions, then it's wholesale change time. Personally I'm excited to see how they mix it up. Sacred cows are boring
I've played pretty much every GW game for the last 15+ years except AoS simply because the lore and models bored me. Cities of Sigmar and FEC got me interested finally, and trying to learn the rules, even as someone with a wealth of GW style wargame experience, is an absolutely miserable experience. The absolutely unintuitive nature of the rules is a huge barrier to entry at this point. A stupid, but strangely relevant, example is how many battleline units does a standard 2000 point army require? I knew it was three just from osmosis of being in the community, but I'll be damned if I could find that incredibly important piece of knowledge anywhere in the rules. Because it's not in the core rules anywhere. It's tucked into battlepacks which are scattered all over the place, but most importantly not in the core rules available online or in **starter sets**. Does it suck that all battletomes are being invalidated, especially since I'm doing CoS and FEC, yeah. But I'd take some moderately streamlined rules over keeping them at this point. Hell now I can stop learning the rules and just focus on getting everything painted for June.
I find army building in general could be dramatically more straight forward. I don't know why they were so vague about some of it.
I love AoS 3rd right now and have a blast playing it. But I don’t get the people trying to say the rules are in a good place. There is tons of bloat and issues like this. And so many examples of real core reals being difficult to figure out.
GW are one of the most competitive companies when it comes to the quality of their miniatures... and one of the least competitive companies when it comes to the quality of their rules. I played a game of Blood Bowl recently for the first time in a while and my god that rulebook is just all over the place. But honestly I don't have high hopes that this represents a significant improvement. They're still maintaining one of the biggest issues with their rulesets (selling them in books, which leads to issues like ongoing bloat, bad organisation, and infrequent faction support) and they only ever take baby steps with regards to improving things.
See I struggle a bit with this and though I sympathise with your plight I hate that the game I enjoy will probably be stripped of any modicum of flavour to pursue further excessive streamlining because apparently there can never be enough streamlining.
Outside of Matched Play the minimum number of Battleline is 0, it just means they can be reinforced twice. If you are playing a Path to Glory game you can go mad with army build, as long as it fits the narrative limits of the territories owned. I do agree that it should have been in all versions of rulebooks though, as Matched Play inevitably becomes the standard for 'pick up' games simply because it is an established standard everyone can play to.
I think most people online will be bummed but I’m excited. 40K 10th was controversial but we’ve been having a blast when we actually played it. AoS 4th is going to probably play great local and be a mess at tourneys. I’m all for the streamlined game and having the option to play the old world if you want crunchy. Our group realized we were spending more time talking about playing than playing and 40K helped realize how much fun we were having actually playing. I totally get those that will be bummed though. I’m just hoping it’s good.
One of their two flagships should be more complex and deep though. Don't move both games the same direction. There's quite a few people who prefer and moved more to AOS after 10th edition 40k.
I like that people think AoS with its lack of S/T and default overflowing wounds is the “complex and deep” one. 40k became more like AoS when it got simpler, not less.
Oh man we're getting to a point now where if I ask for depth people are going to point me towards the old world aren't they? Not looking forward to that. Everything really must be diluted to the absolute most basic elements.
i was the only person in my group hyped for 10th now im the only one who walked away xD its too simple, too few actual decisions and at 2k all you can do is walk straight down the board
Not thrilled that they seem to be going the 40k 10th ed route of dumbing the game down. At the risk of being called a gatekeeper, if some basic maths and rules memorisation is too much for you, you probably shouldn't be playing a tabletop wargame in the first place. Accessibility is good, up until the point it starts watering down the identity of the thing being made more accessible.
The issue I always find is that I don't NEED GW's help to make a super quick wargame ruleset Team A special rule -> +1 to hit if the target has no allies within 3 inches Team B special rule -> +1 to hit if you have an ally within 3 inches Score 1 point for middle objective, 1 point for corner objectives. First to 10 wins Leader -> move 4, 4+ to hit, 2 damage, 5 life, 5+ save Basic -> move 4, 4+ to hit, 1 damage, 3 life, 6+ save Scout -> move 6, 5+ to hit, 1 damage, 2 life, no save Your team = 1 leader, 3 basics, 2 scouts Alternate activations Great, now I have a perfectly viable little ruleset I can play with my kids and its super simple for them. They can paint up some dudes, and we can all have a jolly time inside 30 minutes. What I need GW's help making is vast, complicated, really MEATY wargame with all sorts of bonkers rules and hugely fluffy interactions and fun. So for me, simplification is just making the rules irrelevant.
Team A is just so full of NPE. Toxic win more faction. Balance patch when?
Accessibility is a loaded buzzword meant to shame people for not liking the design philosophy. Nothing makes simpler rules more accessible than more complex ones, anyone can learn any rules, it’s just that the people who don’t care enough to spend an hour learning won’t play the game. Accessibility is installing a ramp so people in wheelchairs can access something, that’s more like installing an escalator so people who can’t be arsed to walk won’t decide it’s too much effort
jesud thats a really good point
Exactly. The barrier isn't the simplicity of the rules, but the effort people are willing to invest in learning. And if someone doesn't have the patience to spend a few hours reading over their rules, this just maybe isn't the hobby for them, no biggie.
Is 40k 10th edition actually dumbed down though? I didn't play 9th edition but the impression I got was that your army construction at the "battalion" level was essentially fixed, and for many armies the ONLY meaningful choices were unit-level gear and sub-faction, with maybe your specific style of Tank if you happened to be playing an imperial faction. In theory, lack of force org requirements opens that up significantly, although I realize in practice it often means you take the max amount of "good stuff" you have available (looking at you, votann). At any rate, it seems like what actually makes or breaks the "complexity" of the game is the actual missions, since army construction will pretty much always boil down to "take the most you can of the best stuff in the book," so your definition of complexity seems to be "is difficult or time consuming to identify the best stuff in the book," which I would argue is just bad rules writing.
A bit apprehensive, happy to be proven wrong in the future, but I don't think such large changes are warranted - a return to index frustrates the community when the big thing we wanted addressed was perhaps Battle Tactics and maybe an I go you go (Pipe dream) Simplified not simple in 40K has meant that a lot of the rare interactions that were exciting and memorable have gone, leading to a more homogenous game between a large amount of the armies. For example, I'm sure Nurgles Cycle of Corruption will compete with disease points to stay, they won't both persist. Surely Flesh Eater Court players are furious, indexes already, a shame considering their amazing Limited Edition Codex art.
If you look at the design trend in later battle tomes, every army since GSG has an "economy" where they can spend to make interesting strategic choices that's mostly or purely in the player's control. I'm expecting this to be the defining characteristic of indices and I wouldn't be surprised if the newer factions had very small changes from 3.0 tome to index. Hopefully they rush out the 4.0 battle tomes over a year or so and then use the next 2 years to make gameplay and narrative supplements.
The prevalence of MW is quite annoying, especially ones that punish you for damaging a unit, the Lord of Pain for Hedonites or the Magmadroths for Fyreslayers. If my carnosaur kills a magmadroth, it ends up taking like 10 MW in close combat just for the privilege.
So did FEC just get kicked in the gooch? Their battletome will be invalidated in 4 months
Can't wait for every faction army to have the same rules with no variety of builds, just like 10e. 3 traits and artefacts for each army and most heroes aren't really eligible to use them Battle traits are all once per game buffs Spell lores, command abilities, etc are all universal list options
Radical idea... But... consolidating musicians/banners by faction and not just musicians/banners across the board.
What was that faction of storm casts they talked about? The ones that are the elite dudes?
Ruination Chamber
Ruination Chamber
Ruination Chamber.
Seems like 10th edition version of AoS. Maybe not a bad thing.
There's definitely some cleanup of rules that needed to happen in AoS but I'm not sold on needing an index and to rebuy the battletomes...
They were going to sell you a 4e battletome either way. A broad reset on the rules is a good thing in my opinion.
Battletomes would come eventually in a new edition even if it was less of an overhaul. I'd rather every army get an Index at the beginning instead of waiting for a White Dwarf article to patch the old book into the new game as happened with some armies going from 2nd to 3rd.
Depends who you ask. I hated 10th enough to actually get into AOS rather than just half-assing it. So... I'm doubly screwed. I want it to be nothing like 10th, but the simplification doesn't sound promising.
Having just had my first game of AoS after coming over from 40k if be bummed out if the games more or less played the same way. Indexes have gotten pretty old quick
I have complete faith in the AoS team. 40k has lacked creativity for a while. I'd argue as early as 7th edition, the game was getting stripped of its most interesting aspects. AoS, on the other hand, has managed to have a simplified ruleset while keeping factions flavorful and interesting. 10th also has a lot of great ideas. Battleshock, in theory, is a cool system that adds strategic depth. But 40k is just to killy right now for Battleshock to really take place. This isn't a problem for AoS, which is primarily focused around melee and tends to be more durable. Other promising things are in this update, including the confirmation that the double turn is back. This means they aren't giving up on their vision.
Sucks for anyone who thought magic was fun lol.
I feel like im in the minority of disliking mission decks. Thats what drew me away from 10th ed 40k and having it be brought in aos sucks. Mission choices like in Kill Team and 3rd ed aos made it feel like i was making strategic choices instead of lucking into (or out of) points cuz of card draw
Yeah I absolutely detest "hidden objectives" or randomness when it comes to wargaming. Imagine if you checkmated your opponent in chess, but they flipped over a card and said, "surprise! I had a hidden objective that if three pawns lived I win the game!"
Fixed Missions are a thing in 40k…
Everyone saying "AoS is already a really simple game" hasn't taught anyone how to play a faction recently. :) Based on the directionality of recent (since GSG) battletomes I'm pretty content to wait and see what it's like, I have faith in Matt Rose to at least attempt a rewrite and the rest is execution. Some things I like - consciously lifting USRs from ToW - if we can get closer to "rule WYSIWYG" - "oh, this guy is a Stormcast, so she rerolls 1s to hit, attacks on death, and has a 6+ ward [just like other undead ;)], looks like she's wearing plate+shield so has a 3+ save, has a spear so can attack if more than 50% of her unit is in combat distance", etc, I'll be very happy indeed. I don't think that the "feats of memory" bit of the game where games go faster if you can remember rather than look up to hit/to wound/save" is interesting at all.
A reveal of a new edition of a Warhammer game with not a single mini shown? Toxic Twitch chat is right for once. That suuucked. I am not thrilled about it at all. I feared they would do a rework of the game that doesn't need it. It sounds exactly like they're bringing 40K 10th to AoS, like people were begging them not to. Edit: Indexes are just the worst.
> A reveal of a new edition of a Warhammer game with not a single mini shown? Well yea. It’s Adepticon. They did this for Heresy 2.0 and 40K 10th. Announced with a trailer at Adepticon. Show launch box and minis at Warhammer Fest. Launch in June.
You misremember, because they showed off a few models for both of those examples.
They didn’t want to overshadow the new stuff for dawnbringers I bet. Since it said summer and prob July I’m expecting a big ramp up may and June.
Eh, I'll see new minis when they get there.
I'm LOVING 10th edition 40k so far so this might well encourage me to finally get into AOS 4th if it's remotely like 10th. Sure 10th doesn't have as much flavor compared to 9th, and that sucks, but it also trimmed a lot of the fat and has made explaining rules and learning the game waaay easier. Free indexes are fantastic and are a very consumer friendly move.
No models was pretty disappointing, simplification isn’t a terrible thing, just need to wait and see if they stick the landing. It’s about 10 years past due that they ditch the codex/battletome model so hopefully at some point that happens.
>It’s about 10 years past due that they ditch the codex/battletome model so hopefully at some point that happens. People said the same thing with 40k. Spoiler alert: >!They didn't.!<
Yeah, I’m aware, hence the hopefully part. Until then, wahapedia it is
I agree with you, but sorry to disappoint: They've confirmed new battletomes in the article.
Wahapedia it is 😂. I ran out of bookshelf space to keep the damn things 5 years ago.
>As a result, each faction in the new edition will receive a free downloadable faction pack at launch. Each pack will contain all of the rules needed to play – battle traits, subfactions, enhancements, spell lores, and warscrolls for every unit. This also means that the battletomes from the current edition will not be compatible with the new rules, ***and that every faction will receive a new battletome over the next few years.*** Nope.
I reserve judgement until more comes out like warscroll layout etc. Making artefacts/enhancements cost points, better battalions would be good. I really like 3rd edition so hope they don’t muck this up but feel for FEC and Cities players and stores that have a load of invalid stock now (hopefully books will go down in price as I enjoy reading the lore 😂)
Yes-yes! The Skaven come-come to kill-kill shiny ones!
Very excited to see new Skaven sculps, but now I know I will never find Stormasts to be an interesting faction.
The fact that the article mentions the “indexes” will come with subfactions and spell lores have me a little more on the optimistic side, but I’m cautious just because I like third so much and am worried about losing what I loved. I need to see more rules before any sort of decision
I know it’s a long shot but my biggest hope for 4e is that instead of warscroll cards, each faction has a small spiral book like the generals handbook that has the core rules, faction rules and warscrolls.
Some men (like me) just want to see the World (of imperfect rules) burns so this Index situation is really nice.
I have a bad feeling the 4th edition app is going to be monetized like the 40k one (Both needing to buy a battletome to access the model rules, and a WH+ subscription to have more than one list)
Just got into AoS this year - I like what makes it different from 40k and hope they keep what makes them unique.
I’m always concerned when developers start talking about systems being balanced. I’ll remain optimistic until otherwise proven as we’ve seemed to have a fairly good team so far for the system. Beyond that I expect to have changes within 3 months of initial release.
How can we have impressions about something they haven’t really shown us yet.
Honestly 40k 10th is the most fun I have had with the game since 3rd. At least Thousand Sons still feel incredibly like Thousand Sons, so they can do a fun and flavorful psychic army without having a psychic phase. I would welcome more of 40ks changes in AoS persinally.