AoS 4th Edition is nearly here...

Sprues and Brews has some condensed thoughts on all the factions in the game, not super in-depth but some interesting stuff.

https://spruesandbrews.com/2024/06/...gmar-4th-edition-faction-focus-and-deep-dive/

Comet's call as an anti-chaff spell makes sense, probably not unlimited just because of its potential output and how many wizards we have but it'd be nice if it was.

 

.... sigh..... what a waste of a mechanic.

In general though; there's a lot of limitations on stuff in 4th shown in the goonhammer stuff so far.
Traits, artifacts, spells; all of them are limited to 3 or 4 options.
A lot of stuff is limited to once per combat.
A lot of stuff only affects a limited number of units, or in a very limited range (subfaction abilities that only buff specific units, or only buff max 3 units, gitz's sneaky distraction being limited to wholly within 12" while being cast by some of the squishiest wizards... etc.)
Loads of conditional limitations (SCE's envoy of heaven, SCE's lightning blast, Fyreslayer's Forge brethren etc.)

Some of it is pretty thematic; and there are some cool effects. Some of the limitations even create some halfway interesting mechanics (SCE's lightning blast actually seems somewhat fun in the right situation.... but it being their only damage spell kinda spoils that fun) . But would it have killed GW to provide a few generic options? Or at least provide more than a handfull of options if they're going to be throwing around so many limitations?

Seriously, either provide generic tools, or provide a lot of specialized tools (or a mix of both...). But don't provide only a handfull of specialized tools.

 

The specialized tools in the index stuff seems to be the unit abilities and warscroll spells, while the spell lores are the generic tools that're tailored to the faction itself. I definitely agree that it's a little lame to have everything consistently paired down this much, but it seems like you're incentivized to think more about what the things you're taking as part of list building are bringing to the table, over the rest of the stuff around them.

A little bit more seraphon info from i think aoscoach's ama, I think relevant to the discussion. Kroak is the MW caster with that unlimited damage spell, but also a little squishier than before because its per turn and chip on him is going to add up. An interesting interaction is that things like maggotkin disease infections or the warpflame from tzeentch completely nullify his Dead of Innumerable Ages trait, since instead of healing he'll just automatically remove those debuffs and be wide open for further chip.

These previews are prevented from showing off points for some bizarre reason, but it consistently seems like the god and other centrepiece unique models are being given a pretty massive power boost, which is fun on some level but also a little weird for their stated desire to diversify listbuilding options. Sylvaneth, for example, are tied at the hip to their wyldwoods now and so Belthanos (letting you pick a piece of terrain to count as one) and the Lady of Vines (who counts as one herself) are basically auto-takes just because you're otherwise at the mercy of spellcasting rolls/positioning the wyldwoods in exact range to use any of your battle traits.

 

All of it is very specialized and loaded with limitations
Just look at the SCE stuff; there's only a handfull of faction related rules that don't come with some sort of limitation, like "only in friendly terrain" or "only units with keyword X", or "only if a unit died in the previous turn" or "after deepstriking" or "nearest unit with LoS that hasn't been hit yet".

The only mechanic that provides consistent generic tools without (significant) restrictions is their prayer lore for some reason.

Also, at this point prayers are just better than magic, especially when you reach that empowered ability. I would really love if GW could explain what exactly their vision is regarding wizards, priests etc. as archetypes and what exactly the advantage of one over another is supposed to be. Wizards have always been a bit weird in AoS, but especially in 4th there isn't anything particularly special about them anymore.

Honestly; I'd be willing to bet they just didn't fully test that particular interaction. Wouldn't be the first time that the playtesters somehow missed a weird, but rather obvious, rules interaction.

 

Looks like we're getting our index on July 9th! From what I've heard though, some content creators have been leaking some faction warscrolls, so here's hoping we might see some juicy stuff before the 9th. I did read or hear somewhere that aggradons have had their weird Rage ability fixed, with them gaining a token whenever they Fight and only losing them if they do not Fight in the combat phase.

 

It's not a super perfect overview, but the garbagehammer podcast went over the seraphon stuff a day or so ago and gave some interesting details
https://garagehammer.net/2024/06/faction-focus-2-seraphon/

100% this is true and it'll probably be changed with an FAQ or something pretty quick, it's sort of thematic for warpflame to stop it but it's also not fun to have a faction trait completely shut down kroak's entire gimmick and table him round 2

 

At this point we know basically all the scrolls and just need to know points.

Looks great overall but obviously points are the most important elements.

Kroak + healing debuffs have always worked that way. It's part of the risk reward of the ability itself


Also... We have to remember these are indexes people. If things feel a little lacking it's because it's an index. This isn't supposed to be instead of a book, it's supposed to help us get to the book.

You have to imagine there will be a decent amount of additional nuance added in the literal tomes themselves

 

I don't want a half-finished index.
I want a fully fleshed out tome.

GW really needs to stop release half-finished rules at the start of each new edition which then get fixed with various bandaids until they finally get around to writing proper tomes. Only to immeadiatly start the whole circus anew by announcing the next edition shortly after finishing the last tome.

 

For those interested, Goonhammer posted a short overview of the Seraphon index today. The one thing that stood out to me was the Starseer, who now potentially gives 5+ ward saves every hero phase instead of once per battle. The caveat is that there's an undefined range to this ability now, and you have to roll a 3+ on the dice, though you still get to roll a number of dice equal to the battle round. Coupled with being a 2-cast wizard and Celestial Doom being boosted to 18", I'm very glad to have the mini in my arsenal.

Also, I've heard and read from other sources that the Astrolith Bearer no longer provides any bonuses to casting. It hands out a 6+ ward wholly within 12" or a 5+ if a unit already has a 6+. If a wizard casts a spell within that range, the Astrolith boosts the control scores of units in its buff range by 3.

 

Huh, spruesandbrews mentioned seraphon having two lores of magic like tzeentch does, but the goonhammer overview explicitly says they only have the one. It also refers to a "stegadon priest" hero at one point that maybe is just a typo and means Chief?

Otherwise speed of huanchi is nice, while being able to just turn off rend with an unlimited spell is a fun tool to have

 

Honestly, it's really weird given the amount of players who stick with older editions, or even older games (like @NIGHTBRINGER )
You'd think consistently losing a bunch of players at each new edition would have a noticeable impact on their bottomline, to encourage them to change, even if eventually those old players get replaced by fresh blood throughout an edition's lifespan.

Would really love to know the numbers that GW sees, and importantly, what kind they expect throughout an edition's lifetime in terms of in terms of incoming and outgoing players.

Well, it is in line with everything else revealed so far, so I guess the dissapointment is expected at this stage.
Stuff like the heroic traits make me want to cry though. Have they forgotten that other heroes than a carnosaur exist?
The entire thing feels like an beta version of a kickstarter project, not like the ruleset for the 4th edition of an established game.
I don't remember 2nd or 3th edition being this unfinished.

.....what is GW's obsession with control score? Can they not think of other mechanics?

 

Why do you not like it? Or do you just think GW is focusing too much on it?

 

I have a feeling that the goonhammer article was hastily written and possibly rather poorly as a result. I also did a double take at the mention of "Stegadon Priest," they must have meant the Chief. The Seraphon faction focus from GW specifically states that we have two spell lores: "Slann Starmasters are some of the greatest magical conduits in all of existence, surpassing even the Lords of Change that serve Tzeentch. Bolstered by the immortal Lord Kroak they have access to two Spell Lores." Although, I suppose goonhammer just says that this is the only lore we have "for the time being". Which is odd seeing as other leaked sources give us the full details of the spells in the other Primal Jungles spell lore.

I might be the odd one out, but I'm not disappointed by the reveal of these rules at all. On the contrary, I'm excited for the new edition and the nixing of battleshock in favour of control score (hot take, I know). Though, I'm also one of the "new blood" that @Canas mentioned since AoS 3, so I suppose I don't have years and years of other letdowns and whatnot that GW is prone to subjecting the community to. Lizardmen always intrigued me during the time of Fantasy, but I was perpetually put off by the rank-and-file system, so I stuck with 40k Space Marines until life got in the way and my 60 tactical marines were replaced by Primaris Anyway, here's hoping we get to see some more leaks leading up to next Tuesday.

 

I'm rarely fan of these kinda mechanics. It's a very gamey mechanic, that can't be ignored since its core to scoring points, with potential for abuse by stacking the right (de)buffs. Those kind of mechanics tend to either be completely forgettable, or end up dominating the game with weird (possibly unintended) interactions. Especially in PvP games where players will be purposefully looking for gamebreaking nonsense to win tournaments

And specificly in this case; GW is just using it way too much, putting it on too many units, half of which really don't need an objective-focused rule.
For example, the carnosaur has an objective control rule because it used to have a battleshock rule. But this rule does not fit with its role of being a big scary monster that is good at killing other monsters...

 

So you didn't like the Bravery stat and mechanics from previous editions either? It seems similar to Bravery and there were mechanics for manipulating that as well; like "Terror" from the Carnosaur.

 

Allow me to be a bit of a devil's advocate here. I'll preface by saying everyone is, of course, entitled to their own opinion and nobody can be forced to like something that they don't. I don't like that the carnosaur isn't more like the mawcrusha, but some might like that they're not as powerful and are therefore cheaper.
Think about it this way though — AoS 3 still had Objective Control, even though it wasn't called that. Every model had its own value based on its wound count. So the difference now is that it's clearly shown on the warscroll with the sunsetting of bravery and battleshock. This allows units to be further flavoured and expanded upon, with some units being able to hold objectives better than others based on their roles. Furthermore, because of the extra rules and abilities that support this expanded-upon system, it allows for greater skill expression by the players to swing an objective and a battle in their favour, whereas previously it was essentially just X models vs Y models on an objective. The new Astrolith warscroll, for example, supports this while maintaining its magical flavour. It provides a ward save and increases nearby objective control when a nearby wizard casts a spell. Other "banner bearer" HQs in other armies have been changed too for this new role as OC buff/debuff HQs, which I personally think is a great change that doesn't take away from their thematics.

I can't speak much to your preference for "gamey" mechanics — this is a tabletop wargame after all, and it's rather subjective as to what numbers seem too gamey and which don't. One could also argue rolling dice to hit a particular number for casting spells or seeing how brave some models are is also a very gamey mechanic. That's up to individual preferences I suppose.

I would actually make a counterpoint that the -2 objective control is actually a very anti-monster rule for the Oldblood on Carnosaur. If you plop the carno on top of your basic 10-man infantry unit, most of the time their control score will be 11 (10 plus a banner). A -2 to that won't help the carnosaur much, with an OC of 5. However, if you play the Oldblood on Carno as (seemingly) intended against another monster, most monster units have an OC of 5 — just like the Carno. So in that case, the -2 will drop the enemy to 3 while maintaining your score of 5, winning you the objective. So in that case, I would say it's actually designed to be used against monsters as the rest of the model seems to be.

Again, nobody can force someone to like something they don't, but perhaps I can provide an alternate point of view and some food for thought. I can certainly see the reasoning that battleshock/bravery wasn't necessarily broken, so why change it argument. I'm personally a fan of the change to OC/bravery though and I'm keen on seeing how it affects games and what units we pick.

 

O no, bravery was fine (or well.. the principle was fine. It was kind of poorly executed though...)
The issue I have with it also isnt manipulating a stat in itself.

The issue I have with OC is the following:

1. It's a very gamey mechanic. It's an arbitrary score, as opposed to something vaguely sensible. For example, there's no real logic as to why the SoB giants, 20 skinks, and 4 carno's all count as having an OC of 20.
   
2. The large amount of variability in terms of OC and general unit power results in scenarios where the mechanic kinda falls apart. For example, you can't straightforwardly "contest" an objective against an SoB. It has an OC of 20, simply getting enough models in range to contest the objective will be hard enough, but on top of that the SoB will kill a bunch of those. Suddenly your skinks are kind of terrible at contesting the objectives, the one thing they're normally good for, not because you got outmanouvered, but because there's a giant ball of stats on the objective you can't possibly compete with. Stacking (de)buffs creates similarly odd scenarios.
   
3. Since it's the main way to score points; you can't really ignore it and focus on other aspects of the game. Combined with 2; that means your opponent simply using a particular strategy has a disproportionate impact on how you play the game.

A simple way to improve the mechanic would be to simply limit the units that can hold an objective to specific roles. E.g. only infantry can hold an objective. It would reduce the gamey nature, by introducing some semblance of logic into the mechanic, and it'd reduce variability because you would no longer need to account for both monsters and skinks trying to contest the same objective.

And yes, it'd mean SoB would not be a functional army, but honestly they shouldn't exist as a proper faction. Their entire concept kinda breaks things.

The variant in 3th was slightly better; as it didn't come with as many modifiers, and the amount of units with "weird" OC scores were very limited.
Still didn't particularly like it though.

That could've worked if they had limited it to the likes of skinks, saurus warriors, and steelhelms. While also limiting the OC of other units types (e.g. cavalry). But they really only did that in a handfull of cases. Whatever potential it may have had as a mechanic is largely wasted.

"skill expression" is the bane of good design. Focusing on it nearly universally results in weird gamey rules that undercut the core of your game.
It's how you get nonsense like the astrolith bearer.

So let's look at what adding it to the astrolith bearer brings:
Sure, planting a banner helping with objective control makes some thematic sense. But why exactly is a wizard involved? Other than an arbitrary extra layer of difficulty for the "skill expression" what exactly does that add? Is it somehow thematic? Is it actually an interesting challenge to cast a spell next to your banner? Is there any reason for the astrolith and wizard to be close to eachother other than this arbitrary interaction? And if I have the astrolith, wizard, and say a unit of skinks or saurus all standing on that objective, do I actually need this buff to hold the objective or is this only going to happen when that objective is solidly under my control anyway?

Or in other words; what exactly is the point?

O sure, where exactly you draw the line is always up for debate.
But for example, it's quite clear what the purpose is of rolling for a casting value. It's clear why more powerfull spells require a higher roll, it's clear why powerfull wizards get modifiers.

Now OC for infantry is has some reasonably clear purpose and logic to it. Sure 1 skink has an OC of 1; make sense. A liberator having an OC of 2 makes some kinda sense as well. But why does a carno have an OC of 5? Should a carnosaur even be able to hold an objective? The big dinosaur doesn't have the brains for that. And the oldblood is riding up high, shouldn't he dismount to properly hold the objective? Or what about terradon riders? Presumably they're flying, so how are they holding the objective on the ground below? Similarly, why do foot heroes only have a OC of 2? Shouldn't a curseling be able to easily win against a single liberator and hold the objective?

You're being far too generous; GW is lazy and the only reason the carno has it is cuz previously terror affected bravery

Anyways, even if we assume GW for once wasn't just horrificly lazy:
You're forgetting one important thing; the carnosaur is quite good at killing stuff; and most basic 10 man MSU isn't very good at surviving.
With that modifier your carno needs to kill fewer guys to take the objective. It makes him weirdly good at stealing objectives as it should pretty reliably kill 4+ skinks/steelhelms/etc. in a MSU.

Also, if GW wanted to make it an anti-monster thing, they could've just made the rule "-2 OC for enemy monsters". Easy enough a fix to keep the anti-monster theme going, flavour it as the carno being extra territorial against other monsters or something. But they didn't do that.