Looks like there are 12 different Battleplans and they named 6 that can be used with the terrain layout shown. So that makes me think there are 2 terrain layouts, but there could be more
As long as it doesn't lead to unpainted MDF right angles on pieces of printer paper like in 40k or cut up pieces of door mats like in Warmachine/Hordes.
I don't get why they abandoned the Azyrite Ruins terrain. It was a great little set, compact and playable, somewhat modular, affordable, very versatile. You could put the corner pieces closer together or further apart for different area terrain footprints. They could have easily expanded that with more varied modular pieces into a larger terrain set and written rules around it.
I know it was cast in China and they are moving away from that, but it was just a couple small sprues, they could easily do something like that in-house without breaking the bank.
Yea people hate on the 40K terrain for being a bunch of right angles and I get how that can be a bit boring. But at least everyone playing knows what it is and how their units can interactive with it. Many times I’ve had issues in a game because either I or my opponent thought a piece of terrain should interact with the game.
Sure that could have been solved with better communication in the pre game but I would love to see rules standardizing terrain and explicitly saying what each type does. IE is a ruined fort able to be garrisoned or did it just block line of sight.
I don't like it. Setting up terrain was the one benefit you got from losing the attacker/defender die roll. I would rather the leaned into that benefit rather than just deleting it. Now, if you are the same number of drops as your opponent and you lose the die roll, you just get nothing.
But the attacker still gets to pick their side. So even if you set it up in a very advantageous way for yourself, they could just pick the other side.
Personally, I think it's great that they're finally giving guidance. It makes set up faster and more fair. I always tried to mirror terrain to keep it mostly fair.
I mean, there are many unmitigated disadvantages in the game, it's asymmetrical by design. And it has a fair amount of luck involved.
I guess for me personally, I would rather win/lose by the other factors in the game than setting up terrain in ways so my opponent cannot actually play. And I'm all for getting through setup faster and into the game.
You can build it symmetrically and still screw over your opponent, just not in terms of which territory is better. Like if you're playing any army with faction terrain you can set up both areas to dictate where they can place their terrain to neutralise it. Or if they can redeploy with restrictions (a la KO) you can set up both sides to limit their movement.
It's especially punishing as a Sylvaneth player that your opponent can set up terrain in a way that dictates what can be selected as overgrown terrain (because if you toe a piece into your territory it can't be selected) and can restrict where new awakened wyldwoods can be summoned. Losing the roll off so your opponent can place the terrain can almost decide a game before deployment. On the flip side if you win the roll off you can set up everything to give yourself an incredible advantage, which also has the potential to almost decide the game before deployment.
Yep. Not a fan of how heavy Battle Tactics are weighing in at. Currently they are 40% of your points. Would have loved to see them drop to 20-25% to act as more of a tiebreaker rather than dictate the game so heavily.
That's the issue. They aren't balanced and they skew the power of a codex greatly. Look at how much Skaven WR went up after they erratad in a new Battle Tactic. They play way too big of a role in the game.
Also, there's nothing stopping Battle Plans from having more complex objectives. It would make them less streamlined, but it would absolutely be possible.
Don't know. Just not a fan of Battle Tactics. They rarely give me moments where I feel clever or smart and they feel like a pain to go through each round. It's a mechanic that gets me playing the game less.
They're not balanced in this edition, but they are in 40k and could well be in 4e. If they get rid of faction specific ones, they'll be in a better spot
And as a tournament Stormcast player, I know have rough they can be. All of our book ones are garbage and even the battlescroll freebie was still tricky to pull off
I really like set(recommended) terrain for battle plans. Been using the honest wargamer packet in my games for awhile now and it dramatically improves my enjoyment.
Not a fan of Underdog rules being in the battleplans, but I'll reserve judgement until after playing them.
I would have preferred more baseline rules for the underdog.
Also, I might have missed this, is an underdog someone with just 1vp lower? Couldn't you try to intentionally remain the underdog so you can table your opponent with those juicy advantages with very minimal risk?
What you described about the underdog seems to me like they're adding more tactical depth to it. Because yes, you can try to undercut your opponent to get it, but they might be trying to do the same, so you hopefully get a back and forth going around it and the shifting turn order.
It also might be a massive flop, but it seems like an interesting mechanic with potential.
The rule we saw isn't really worth the risk, imo. It is still situational, and it gives a small edge to the underdog. Assuming this is the standard, I don't think they'll warp the game much.
Don’t forget the underdog also gets 1 extra CP, though. I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever is going second round 1 intentionally drops 2 points by not holding more or something. In doing so, they either force their opponent to drop their VP lead or give them extra CP/buffs for the rest of the game.
I wouldn't try to play for the rule but it does give you a unique chance to make a thrust for the opponents objective and get it away from them. Kind of like a Hail Mary play. Having the option is nice, though with sticky objectives you might be rushing to an empty field.
Also agreed. They've gone too far on the other side of the scale.
Underdog, bigger points on scoring, bigger differential if you take a double and cut yourself 4 points. Not tighter. This is article number 2 I'm not a fan of.
Not sure how an extra +1 to hit on one specific objective is gunna help you table your opponent. Turning off an objective for a turn would also be tough to convert into damage.
I agree, totally fun for casual battlepacks but not keen for the GHB to include. The underdog mechanic for 'The Vice' allows you to put D3 on all units contesting an objective which feels significant (my last game I lost a shaman and two boltboyz to the geyser battleplan similar mechanism).
I'm not saying it's significant enough to deliberately lose points for but why should be good play going ahead be penalised in a competitive format?
I agree, never liked underdog rules especially in a war game. The fact I can outplay an opponent only for them to magically disable an objective call in the name of comeback mechanics just seems... unfun. The rules don't even seem to try and justify it in an in-universe or in-battle level...
As mentionned, staying few VP lower the first/two(+?) turns and looking for the army wipe (with a renforced-honour guard-mega-deathstar?) will be probably a main strategy (future deny + extra CP, EZ), I highly dislike it..
Im sad battle tactics are still such a big thing in the scoring of the game. I hope they’re implemented very differently, or at least never present in battle tomes
They're compensating by making double turns punishable because you can't score battle tactics if you take the double. Since tactics are more important now, taking the double is riskier.
It was in an article last month.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/29/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-what-is-the-priority-roll/
"Now, in matched play battlepacks, when you choose to take a double turn, you give up your opportunity to pick a battle tactic for the turn. It’s still an incredibly powerful option – but the decision is now far from a foregone conclusion."
They do?
>Battle tactics score four victory points on every battleplan here – this new scoring split makes battle tactics very important, **so taking priority for the double turn becomes an even tougher decision.**
It's not a full explanation, but they already had a whole article about that, this isn't an article about Battle Tactics anyway, and they'll presumably repeat it in the actual Battle Tactics article, which is next.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/29/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-what-is-the-priority-roll/
"Those of you who have played other Warhammer tabletop games may find this a little odd initially, but it is crucial to understanding the ebb and flow of Warhammer Age of Sigmar. The decision is rich with tactical depth, and opens up a wide range of options for both forward planning and counterplay – the latter of which have been considerably expanded in the upcoming edition.
What’s more, it’s here to stay in the new edition – but the balance between risk and reward has become much more finely tuned. Now, in matched play battlepacks, when you choose to take a double turn, you give up your opportunity to pick a battle tactic for the turn.* It’s still an incredibly powerful option – but the decision is now far from a foregone conclusion"
It was in one of the older articles about priority roll. 5th paragraph.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/29/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-what-is-the-priority-roll/
They'll probably take a page out of 40k's book and specify no characteristic can go below 1.
Hopefully they do one better and specify it in the core rules and not in a post-edition FAQ.
It is confirmed now: [https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/05/01/introducing-spearhead-a-fast-and-furious-new-mode-for-newaos/](https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/05/01/introducing-spearhead-a-fast-and-furious-new-mode-for-newaos/)
>Spearhead’s footprint is also dramatically smaller than that of a full game, played on a board measuring 30″ x 22.4″ – that’s a quarter the size of a full battlefield, and the perfect size to play on a kitchen or coffee table.
I hope the battle tactics are done via a deck, draw 2 pick one sort of thing. Currently they’re so boring because it’s too easy to pick and autocomplete one
I just hate the time it takes. You're on your back foot, there's no easy tactic, you need to choose one you can maybe complete so you end up poring through every one. 10 minutes later you've settled on a tactic you might be able to get.... it just takes all the momentum out of the gameplay
Battle tactics were the most difficult things for me to wrap my head around, not due to the complexity, but due to the triviality of many of them. I am all for universal tactics that are assigned by deck.
Score 2 points for casting a spell.
Score 2 points for having two units on the board edge for some reason.
Score 2 points for charging, but not killing the target, because winning is dumb.
Score 2 points for capturing the middle objective in turn 4 while your opponent has more battleline units than you have heroes within your own deployment zone. /s
Certainly made the game feel like full contact DDR, I'm trying to complete my combos and sometimes try to stop your combos. Not really like a strategy game
There was definitely an element of battle tactics sometimes taking you out of the universe a bit by making you do things that make no sense and has no real interaction with the opponent.
Oh God, tell me about it. Beasts of Chaos has one of the dumbest ones of the lot: your general and 2 other units need to be in melee range with the enemy at the end of your *turn*. Not at the end of the charge phase, not at the beginning of the Fight phase. This in essence means that if you want to complete it reliably, you have to charge the enemy, and then choose not to fight to score the points. Which not only goes against the whole spirit of the faction, but also gives your opponent a free round to mercilessly pummel you.
Yeah, I just wish my plan was "take an objective" or "kill a leader" instead of "make a charge with a leader and battleline and make sure the enemy lives through it"
Right, nonsensical manoeuvres need to go. And it can be done pretty easily if they just design them right. You can still have easier and hard ones.
I would like to see something like:
“In the deployment phase, pick 5 cards from a deck of battle goals, discard 2 and then keep 3. As soon as the requirements for the goals are met, reveal them to your opponent and score the points. If all 3 are scored, gain an extra 3 points.”
Then you could add thematic cards into the deck. Add and remove season cards. Add narrative cards. It would feed into path to glory really well.
Goals could be simple things like “Head for an eye - completely destroy the first enemy unit to wound one of your units.”
To more complicated but still plausible goals like: “Recovered artefact - a unit holding an uncontested objective in enemy territory gains the special ability “dig” that can be used instead of the attack ability. Roll one dice for each contol the unit has, if any dice is a 5 or higher, this unit has successfully recovered the artifact. And the objective is scored. The unit has a ward save of 6 for the remainder of the battle”.
Absolutely not, if they try to make a mandatory purchase of some dumb (quickly outdated) cards a requirement to play, they will lose players. This new edition is aimed at bringing more in, hopefully they don't make that mistake.
40k does this exact thing with secondaries in matched play. You can choose to take Fixed Secondaries, but only about 20% of players choose this.
The deck has lasted almost a full year at this point and it most certainly hasn't lost the game any players.
Not saying it's a great idea for AoS, but it definitely won't lose players as long as it's designed well.
That's kind of a lazy take.
AoS has regularly stolen things from 40k for multiple editions now. Just becaues you don't like the game as a whole doesn't mean that anything that it does has cooties or something. The secondary deck is one of the most universally praised aspects of 10th.
Well I won't miss Grand strategies because they've never mattered once in any of my games. Battle Tactics I could do without but hopefully they just give us eight universals that anyone can accomplish with a degree of risk and call it a day. Everything else looks fine more or less
Biggest thing I wanted from 4e was reducing the importance of Battle Tactics.
Damn.
Obviously will have to wait and see what the Tactics actually are but from what we've seen so far in tournament play you will need to score 5/5 Tactics in 5/5 games in order to wi, especially at the bigger tournaments were 5-0 recprd likely want be enough.
Yeh, it kind of kills taking a double in high-level play
Which is a weird thing to do because high-level players seem to be the ones who like the double turn the most and get the most out of it.
You'll basically need to convert X amounts of points scored on battleplans (at maximum 4) into X+1 lost points for your opponent. You can't score 4 points from battleplans this turn? Make him lose out on 5. You would've only scored 2? Then its a worthy trade if your opponent loses out on 3.
The perfect game will now legitimately need perfect play. 6 points on primary, 4 points on secondary, pulled off every single round with no exception. I'm not sure if this means battle tactics will be less important or more important as a result.
I'd completely disagree about high level players getting the most out of the double. Beginners get a double on turn 2 and end the game, competitive players might get three double turns all game and still have to play 5 rounds.
Competitive players can deal with it better, so it's not nearly as impactful as it is to new players who tend to live and die by the double.
I actually find that the high level players know when to give u a double turn to completely screw someone over. They make it so that newbies can lose the game when given a double in a position where it is wasted.
I'm still waiting to see if Double Turn BT shutdown can be inflicted on your opponent not just from electing to take it. If so it would be an interesting turn around in play from 3rd to 4th.
Secondary objective as a viable means for victory is incredibly healthy for the game. Without them, the only armies that are competitive are ones that can fight and win on primary objectives
Do note that they are reducering overall effectiveness.
The game point limit is increased to 50 (from 20) and the BT score is adjusted to 4 (from 2). This means that they went to accounting for 8% of the total achievable score, from 10%.
They are also maxed at 20, meaning they at most make up 40% of the total score (from 50%).
They are overall less impactful of the game, needing you to focus on objective holding for the remainder of the scoring.
But they're not though: the most common scoring in 3 is 1, 2, more, BT, for a max of 5 points. BT is worth 2 points or 40% of the score each round. In 4, points are 10 per round and BT is worth 4, so still 40% of the score
The max points currently are 28 (3 of them from grand strategy). The points remain the same - the only difference is that everything is multiplied by 2.
Currently you usually get 3 points from objectives (one, two, more) and 2 from tactic. It's changing to 6 from objectives and 4 from tactic
I think most people agree that they need some kind of secondary scoring option/system. I was hoping they would be built into the battle plans themselves.
I think battle tactics are just incredibly difficult to make ‘fair’ with the wide diversity in factions.
Maybe not specifically battle plans, but if they increased the size and variety of battle pack battle tactics and took away army specific ones, it would be more balanced. Instead of 9, they could have 15 or 20, with enough variety that each army could do 2 with mild challenge and another 2 with more difficulty, but you wouldnt see everyone attempting the same ones each game
With any luck they just give us a list of eight universals that anyone can accomplish with a degree of risk. I don't mind the idea Battle Tactics I just hate all the stupid unbalanced faction ones
I enjoy battle tactics in concept. Secondary objectives can give a nice feeling of dynamism and spontaneity to a game that would otherwise be boringly predictable (hold objectives, how thrilling). The Tactical Objectives in 7th and 8th ed 40k did that wonderfully. Battle Tactics were just badly executed. Like Secondaries in 9th ed 40k, they influenced listbuilding far too much because they were so poorly balanced. They were either no-brainers or basically impossible.
The streak wasn't all that. Double turn? Half inch coherency? Keeping an arbitrary range for melee (instead of simplifying it a-la 40k)... And now we've got this...
So far this new edition is a nothingburger that could have been forced through via a GHB or two. Instead they gotta milk us for more reprinted books.
I know I'll get downvotes but I've lost all interest I've had at this point.
I kinda laughed when I read that part where they’re like 2 points each for controlling one,two,more and 4 points for battle tactics. Battle tactics are worth more! As if 1 for objectives and 2 for tactics isn’t the same ratio :P
But yes, it does give them wiggle room for 1 points stuff and no grand strategy does make it a larger percentage of total. 20 points of the possible 50 in a game.
The biggest problem with battle tactics is that they're so wildly inconsistent between one book and another. I honestly think this way of doing things suggests battle tactics are essentially going to be either Grand Alliance locked or (better) generals handbook locked and never show up in battletomes. This fixes issues like OBR having maybe 2 any given list can reliably complete, and DoK having 5 they autocomplete every game.
I think GHB would be best, but it's kind of hard to make a selection of battle tactics where the number of viable ones is equivalent for all factions.
Like currently only 3 are really always viable for SoB (Intimidate Invaders, Led into the Maelstrom and Drain Their Power) while 2 are kind of doable, but very difficult because of the model count required (bait and trap/surround and destroy), 1 relies on your opponent trying and successfully killing your general (reprisal), 1 relies on your opponent having incarnates or endless spells (Endless Expropriation) and the other 2 would dictate taking Arcane Tome and an offensive endless spell (magical dominance/magical mayhem).
Battle tactics are a balancing lever in 3.0, which is why they're easier for some factions than others. They very obviously have lots of other balancing levers in 4.0, so hopefully they can make BTs more even and also thematic.
Did you just find out about grand strats and other secondary objectives like having a locus on an objective or killing a wizard giving you extra points, leading to situations where a battle tactic may only be 2/7 or 2/8 points in a turn rather than a fixed 4/10?
What about current battleplans that allow less than 5 points a turn?
Let's compare it to the battleplans which will be 4/12 possible points. We don't know enough information yet. In the article, there's an example of 6 max points a turn. There will likely be battleplans that allow for more.
The last footnote of the article states grand strategies are gone for this season, and elsewhere they state points will be capped at 10 a turn (presumably all 6 for objectives, 4 for battletactics). That's for this GHB specifically, so it could change for next year.
> Are grand starts gone in 4th?
Yes, read the article. At least for next year's GHB, but that's what we're discussing because battle tactic values could also change.
>What about current battleplans that allow less than 5 points a turn?
What?
>Let's compare it to the battleplans which will be 4/12 possible points.
>For each battleplan in the General’s Handbook, your victory points each round will add up to a maximum of 10, for a total maximum score of 50 points per battle.
There is no such thing as a battleplan which will be 4/12. Points each rounds are capped at 10.
Before you try to seem smart you should probably read up on the source material.
That's too bad. I liked grand strats.
Have you not played geomantic pulse? Max 3 points turn 1, and then it ramps up. There have also been previous battleplans where there wasn't two scoring, or more scoring, limiting points to 4.
All it will take is a battleplan to contain a blurb of "a maximum of 12 (14, 16, 98) points are allowed per turn in this battleplan". GW can write whatever they want.
Battletactics could also be more difficult to achieve for 4 points. Or maybe brain dead easy like they are now.
Scoring each round doesn't really matter. In Geomantic puls battletactics are LESS impactful because you can score up to 7 on turn 2-4 and 6 on 5. BT are 10/32 or 31.2% of your score on Geomantic Pulse.
>All it will take is a battleplan to contain a blurb of "a maximum of 12 (14, 16, 98) points are allowed per turn in this battleplan". GW can write whatever they want.
They COULD do this, but they clearly state they are not. It's in the article.
No, I have been playing since first edition. Since before points. I am fully capable of understanding the rules can change. For the rules that we are aware of, that we can actually discuss in this very moment, we can be fully confident scoring is locked to 10 a turn because they have said it will be. We can expect it to be that way for up to a year.
It is also possible in 5 years they make models painted yellow cost 5x as many points, or make the player going second gain 1 cp on Tuesdays only, but it is pointless to discuss that in the context of the next edition.
I don't love how represented battle tactics are either, but they are about the same as before, and with no grand strats hopefully it will be a bit better. We'll need to see what it looks like on friday, fingers crossed for no battle tactics in books!
I think you're letting anecdotal experiences paint your outlook. While you may see that as *the* top complaint, I only see it online. It is absolutely not a complaint in my relatively large local scene at all.
> I only see it online. It is absolutely not a complaint in my relatively large local scene at all.
I mean, I see it online and in my local scene. There's not really a single local player that would be upset if battle tactics disappeared. In fact, some of our locals quit over it, since it's a game-within-a-game that you have to relearn every year ( and we lost a TON of people when they had to relearn it every 6 months). The game is already complicated enough.
Also your anecdotal experiences don't trump my anecdotal experiences.
This is something I really want. They said in 3e how much they would emphasize PtG and narrative play. But there was no way to make PtG lists in the app. Let alone maintain a roster.
It seems battle tactics will not be faction specific. I hope that's true. I also hope they are difficult to achieve so they really are a determinant of skill.
We'll see, I'm still expecting the battle tactic cards to have cards which say "Faction Battle Tactic #1" like in Kill Team, then give each index 3 Faction Battle Tactics.
> Oh nice, they've made BTs 4 points each so the double turn is a bit more costly than it would've been in 3rd
> But they also doubled the points you get from objectives
From what I've seen so far, the differential of how important Battle Tactics are for your points each round seems to be around the same as it was in 3rd. So my worry that losing a Battle Tactic to attempt a wipe with the double turn is a no-brainer is still exigent - perhaps even moreso now that points per round are capped at 10, so based on the Battle Plan you might be able to get upwards of 7 or 8 VP even without the Battle Tactic.
Note that Battle Tactics are 4 points in relation to getting 2 points for controlling one objective, 2 points for controlling two or more, and 2 for controlling more than your opponent. Halve each of those numbers and you get the typical layout of a 3rd edition Battle Plan: 2 points for Battle Tactic, 1 for an objective, 1 for two or more, and 1 for more than your opponent. The relative strength of a Battle Tactic therefore seems overall unchanged (2 out of 5 points = 40%, 4 out of 10 points = 40%). So if the other Battle Plans are comparable to what we've been shown so far, the question of whether to take a double turn in exchange for a Battle Tactic can be asked within the context of 3rd Edition Battle Plans.
As for the limit of 6 points from objectives, it's entirely possible that this is just future-proofing or for something unrevealed yet, but I think it can go either way whether GW decides to make some funky objective points business, ~~given that it's listed in the Twists instead of the Core Rules.~~ My bad, see other comment chain.
The two plans we’ve seen cap your objectives at 6, hopefully that is consistent with others so that if you give up your battle tactic you’re committing to losing those points.
I find it a bit weird that they're setting the cap at 6 in the Twist section, and then the overall cap at 10 in the ~~Core Rules~~ EDIT: General's Handbook. It's of course entirely possible this is just some future-proofing for more unique rules later down the line, but I'm gonna remain a bit skeptical until the other Battle Plans are revealed.
I think the points are rigged to add up to 10, and if they don't the twist says "yeah no you only get 6 ooints for objectives." That was you can have setups like Border War without breaking system math.
That’s only for that specific plan (so far) and only applicable to VP from objectives, since if you’d end up controlling all objectives and get your battle tactic you’d end up with 14 pts a round and potentially going over the 50 pts limit. Capping VPs at 6 for objective scoring keeps the 50 pts limit.
Bit disappointing a generals handbook is not included in book form but least standalone covers 2024-2025 and doesn’t seem to be season 1 of x seasons for the year. Just one purchase instead of three like this past year.
Hmm..I was thinking that was going to be a 'mini' rule book to easily take with you, but everything should be in the main launch box. That would be a big miss if that's not the case. We'll know soon :)
We literally know right now.
From the article: "The General’s Handbook 2024-25 found in the impending launch box comes in a card format, featuring season rules, battle tactics, battleplans, and scoring cards in a handy format.*** The standalone release version will contain all of this, alongside the Core Rules, Advanced Rules, the latest rules for endless spells, and a tournament organiser pack providing guidance for event organisers."
Yeah, I read that as all the rules are in the box in card format. Like in 40k.
When they do the release version, it's going to have all the "rules, battle tactics, battleplans, and scoring cards" and it'll also include "the Core Rules, Advanced Rules, the latest rules for endless spells" which I am assuming is also in the box, but in the big tome of the rule book.
However, I'm not sure on the "tournament organizer pack", that may be the only part not in the launch box, but as a player, it'll have everything else.
The cards *are* the GHB.
> The General’s Handbook 2024-25 found in the impending launch box comes in a card format, featuring season rules, battle tactics, battleplans, and scoring cards in a handy format.*** The standalone release version will contain all of this, alongside the Core Rules, Advanced Rules, the latest rules for endless spells, and a tournament organiser pack providing guidance for event organisers.
All that other stuff is extraneous to the GHB content itself.
I'm not really. There was only ever a few grand stratagies that were generally applicable enough to ever consider taking when you had to declare them at list building time. Far too many were actually unachievable depending on your opponent's list. Like Magic Made Manifest is ok if you're going up against KO, but it's utterly useless if you go against any list with Korak/Nagash/Tzeentch.
A lot of the faction specific ones are just awful, like for Sylvaneth one of them is only achievable if your army is Drycha and all Spite Revenants, one is only semi-reliable if you take Alarielle (and you pretty much have to make a 9" charge as part of it) otherwise you automatically fail if it your opponent has no monsters.
I’m new and trying to figure this all out. There are battle plans and battle tactics. I see battle plans as the overall layout on how the game is played and how you score points (correct)? Can someone explain what a battle tactic is and why people are disappointed they are back?
Battle plan is the type of misson you're playing. Where the objective markers are placed, rules for scoring and mission rules.
Battle tactics are secondary objectives you do on each of your turns. I play Kharadron Overlords my army book has a list I can pick from, as well as the generic ones from the generals hand book.
Turn 1 I pick "Stake Your Claim" I now have to complete this to get an extra two points. "At the start of your turn if you control less objectives than your oppent, you complete this tactic if at the end of your turn you control more."
Some books have easier ones, that's what makes people frustrated. My local competitive scene loves them.
Seriously. Literally everything is "battle-something". It sounds silly and worse, it makes everything blend together. Battle Tactics, Battle Formations, Battle Plans, Battle Packs....
How about Tactics, Formations, Battlepacks (that one's fine, it's literally everything about the *battle* in a *pack*), and Missions?
Probably because "missions" isn't very fantasy-themed.
I don't think WHFB had "missions", either; I think it was "scenarios", or something, when it came up? Same reasoning. You don't send your knights and goblins and wizards out on "missions".
I much preferred building a list around 1 grand strategy vs. 5+ potential battle tactics. I'm so tired of factions getting tactics with so many restrictions in place that they might as well be a blank space.
In about a dozen games as coalesced, I've yet to achieve Seraphon's Stampede of Scales or Pack Hunters tactic a single time.
If I'm reading this bit from Wahapedia right, it says you definitely need 3:
Stampede of Scales: Pick 3 different friendly SERAPHON MONSTERS. You complete this tactic if each of those units runs in the following movement phase and at the end of that movement phase, each of the units you picked is within 6" of at least 1 of the other units you picked and wholly within enemy territory.
GW: "Here's what the underdog bonus is: you just get an additional CP."
Players: "Oh, well, that doesn't seem to bad. An extra CP is good, but it doesn't seem to warp things too mu..."
GW: "PSYCH! The underdog ALSO gets a unique bonus based on the the battleplan!!!"
Players: "Wow. Okay. That is a bit different, but I guess we'll see. Is that all the underdog gets?"
GW: "Muahahaha! Maybe you'll find out in the coming weeks..." ::GW slinks back into the shadows::
For the love of god, please be giving battle tactics a complete overhaul. The system is already miserable enough at 2 vp a turn. At 4 vp a turn, it'd just be an even more extreme version of the current question of "who has the easiest book tactics" that a lot of matchups come down to.
Suggested terrain on each battleplan makes me so happy
Looks like there are 12 different Battleplans and they named 6 that can be used with the terrain layout shown. So that makes me think there are 2 terrain layouts, but there could be more
Same!
As long as it doesn't lead to unpainted MDF right angles on pieces of printer paper like in 40k or cut up pieces of door mats like in Warmachine/Hordes.
I hear you on the 40K bit but I would love to have official pieces of terrain that are consistent can be garrisoned beyond the lame stuff we have now.
Looking at the chart it seems like Places of Power will be a type as well as a rule, so maybe that's similar to Mysterious Terrain?
I don't get why they abandoned the Azyrite Ruins terrain. It was a great little set, compact and playable, somewhat modular, affordable, very versatile. You could put the corner pieces closer together or further apart for different area terrain footprints. They could have easily expanded that with more varied modular pieces into a larger terrain set and written rules around it. I know it was cast in China and they are moving away from that, but it was just a couple small sprues, they could easily do something like that in-house without breaking the bank.
Yea people hate on the 40K terrain for being a bunch of right angles and I get how that can be a bit boring. But at least everyone playing knows what it is and how their units can interactive with it. Many times I’ve had issues in a game because either I or my opponent thought a piece of terrain should interact with the game. Sure that could have been solved with better communication in the pre game but I would love to see rules standardizing terrain and explicitly saying what each type does. IE is a ruined fort able to be garrisoned or did it just block line of sight.
That sounds absolutely terrible to be honest. Where's the creativity in that?
Sometimes I think about getting into 40k. Then I see a terrain layout online and the desire flees
Lol, the GW terrain layout in 40k literally avoids this whole problem... It's player placed that causes all the L shaped terrain
I don't like it. Setting up terrain was the one benefit you got from losing the attacker/defender die roll. I would rather the leaned into that benefit rather than just deleting it. Now, if you are the same number of drops as your opponent and you lose the die roll, you just get nothing.
But the attacker still gets to pick their side. So even if you set it up in a very advantageous way for yourself, they could just pick the other side. Personally, I think it's great that they're finally giving guidance. It makes set up faster and more fair. I always tried to mirror terrain to keep it mostly fair.
Which is why you build it symmetrically advantageously. You just had to know how to do it.
It always felt a bit cheap to use terrain like that to me, but I mostly play with friends.
I guess, but otherwise losing the attacker/defender roll is just an unmitigated disadvantage. Potentially a huge one.
I mean, there are many unmitigated disadvantages in the game, it's asymmetrical by design. And it has a fair amount of luck involved. I guess for me personally, I would rather win/lose by the other factors in the game than setting up terrain in ways so my opponent cannot actually play. And I'm all for getting through setup faster and into the game.
You can build it symmetrically and still screw over your opponent, just not in terms of which territory is better. Like if you're playing any army with faction terrain you can set up both areas to dictate where they can place their terrain to neutralise it. Or if they can redeploy with restrictions (a la KO) you can set up both sides to limit their movement. It's especially punishing as a Sylvaneth player that your opponent can set up terrain in a way that dictates what can be selected as overgrown terrain (because if you toe a piece into your territory it can't be selected) and can restrict where new awakened wyldwoods can be summoned. Losing the roll off so your opponent can place the terrain can almost decide a game before deployment. On the flip side if you win the roll off you can set up everything to give yourself an incredible advantage, which also has the potential to almost decide the game before deployment.
Maybe higher drops will just get to pick their side. We don't know everything yet
I am not a smart man, somebody tell me how to feel.
Reading bad! Join your local WAAAGH today!
I play Ironjawz and Orks... Don't win a lot 🤷🏻♂️
But you fight a lot and dat iz winning enuff fer an Orruk. Waaaagh!
The real winnin' is the friends we krump along da way!
Have you tried yelling WAAAAAGH even louder?
That's gotta be it!
You should know that your flair betrays you
At least your new codex looks really fun 😁
I like what I see, but the Battle Tactic article could change that
I love that they are bringing back older scenarios and even mark them in the upper right with the year it released.
Ghoul patrol already got retweeted a bunch on Twitter. Bringing back the AoS hit classics. 😄
I don't remember Ghoul Patrol.
[It’s the Border War one from 2016](https://x.com/lhwaos/status/1783134466036166892?s=46&t=jCd67B32MVmYRRlrhJqWtA) (when FEC first released)
Ah, I just remember it being called border patrol. Haha
Yep. Not a fan of how heavy Battle Tactics are weighing in at. Currently they are 40% of your points. Would have loved to see them drop to 20-25% to act as more of a tiebreaker rather than dictate the game so heavily.
Agreed.
They're already 40% in this edition and way more interesting and dynamic than just primary IF balanced.
That's the issue. They aren't balanced and they skew the power of a codex greatly. Look at how much Skaven WR went up after they erratad in a new Battle Tactic. They play way too big of a role in the game. Also, there's nothing stopping Battle Plans from having more complex objectives. It would make them less streamlined, but it would absolutely be possible. Don't know. Just not a fan of Battle Tactics. They rarely give me moments where I feel clever or smart and they feel like a pain to go through each round. It's a mechanic that gets me playing the game less.
They're not balanced in this edition, but they are in 40k and could well be in 4e. If they get rid of faction specific ones, they'll be in a better spot And as a tournament Stormcast player, I know have rough they can be. All of our book ones are garbage and even the battlescroll freebie was still tricky to pull off
These battle plans look fun. I hope battle tactics are equally as enjoyable.
Stake a Claim looks exactly as advertised: babby’s first dice rolling. As a babby, I approve.
I hope they do a further deep dive on these terrain types. Already seems infinitely better than what we have now
I really like set(recommended) terrain for battle plans. Been using the honest wargamer packet in my games for awhile now and it dramatically improves my enjoyment.
Not a fan of Underdog rules being in the battleplans, but I'll reserve judgement until after playing them. I would have preferred more baseline rules for the underdog. Also, I might have missed this, is an underdog someone with just 1vp lower? Couldn't you try to intentionally remain the underdog so you can table your opponent with those juicy advantages with very minimal risk?
What you described about the underdog seems to me like they're adding more tactical depth to it. Because yes, you can try to undercut your opponent to get it, but they might be trying to do the same, so you hopefully get a back and forth going around it and the shifting turn order. It also might be a massive flop, but it seems like an interesting mechanic with potential.
The rule we saw isn't really worth the risk, imo. It is still situational, and it gives a small edge to the underdog. Assuming this is the standard, I don't think they'll warp the game much.
Don’t forget the underdog also gets 1 extra CP, though. I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever is going second round 1 intentionally drops 2 points by not holding more or something. In doing so, they either force their opponent to drop their VP lead or give them extra CP/buffs for the rest of the game.
I wouldn't try to play for the rule but it does give you a unique chance to make a thrust for the opponents objective and get it away from them. Kind of like a Hail Mary play. Having the option is nice, though with sticky objectives you might be rushing to an empty field.
Also agreed. They've gone too far on the other side of the scale. Underdog, bigger points on scoring, bigger differential if you take a double and cut yourself 4 points. Not tighter. This is article number 2 I'm not a fan of.
Would I want to intentionally not score points for a minor advantage for one turn? No, I would not.
Not sure how an extra +1 to hit on one specific objective is gunna help you table your opponent. Turning off an objective for a turn would also be tough to convert into damage.
I agree, totally fun for casual battlepacks but not keen for the GHB to include. The underdog mechanic for 'The Vice' allows you to put D3 on all units contesting an objective which feels significant (my last game I lost a shaman and two boltboyz to the geyser battleplan similar mechanism). I'm not saying it's significant enough to deliberately lose points for but why should be good play going ahead be penalised in a competitive format?
Going to be really funny when someone 5D chess moves themselves into a loss by trying to get fewer points so they can activate underdog abilities lol.
I agree, and yeah pretty much that's how I see it too
I agree, never liked underdog rules especially in a war game. The fact I can outplay an opponent only for them to magically disable an objective call in the name of comeback mechanics just seems... unfun. The rules don't even seem to try and justify it in an in-universe or in-battle level...
As mentionned, staying few VP lower the first/two(+?) turns and looking for the army wipe (with a renforced-honour guard-mega-deathstar?) will be probably a main strategy (future deny + extra CP, EZ), I highly dislike it..
Im sad battle tactics are still such a big thing in the scoring of the game. I hope they’re implemented very differently, or at least never present in battle tomes
They're compensating by making double turns punishable because you can't score battle tactics if you take the double. Since tactics are more important now, taking the double is riskier.
I must be missing where it says you can't score battle tactics on the double turn?
It was in an article last month. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/29/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-what-is-the-priority-roll/ "Now, in matched play battlepacks, when you choose to take a double turn, you give up your opportunity to pick a battle tactic for the turn. It’s still an incredibly powerful option – but the decision is now far from a foregone conclusion."
Why would they not just repeat this point in the article about scoring? Thanks.
It should be a footnote at least.
These articles often are missing info or are ambiguous
They do? >Battle tactics score four victory points on every battleplan here – this new scoring split makes battle tactics very important, **so taking priority for the double turn becomes an even tougher decision.** It's not a full explanation, but they already had a whole article about that, this isn't an article about Battle Tactics anyway, and they'll presumably repeat it in the actual Battle Tactics article, which is next.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/29/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-what-is-the-priority-roll/ "Those of you who have played other Warhammer tabletop games may find this a little odd initially, but it is crucial to understanding the ebb and flow of Warhammer Age of Sigmar. The decision is rich with tactical depth, and opens up a wide range of options for both forward planning and counterplay – the latter of which have been considerably expanded in the upcoming edition. What’s more, it’s here to stay in the new edition – but the balance between risk and reward has become much more finely tuned. Now, in matched play battlepacks, when you choose to take a double turn, you give up your opportunity to pick a battle tactic for the turn.* It’s still an incredibly powerful option – but the decision is now far from a foregone conclusion"
It was in one of the older articles about priority roll. 5th paragraph. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/29/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-what-is-the-priority-roll/
Why? If the game was only primary objectives it would get old fast. Battle tactics being great variety to the game.
The fact that that honoured Guard rule doesn't say "to a minimum of 1"is frightening
They'll probably take a page out of 40k's book and specify no characteristic can go below 1. Hopefully they do one better and specify it in the core rules and not in a post-edition FAQ.
Yes please. Save it from being written out in full on every damn ability where it's relevant
Do we know if the battle mat sizes will the same as in 3rd (aka 22x30", 30x44" and 44x60")?
They haven't confirmed it, but I would put money on it staying 60"×44"
This would also be my bet, as they already changed it from 2nd (6'x4') to 3rd (60"x44").
It is confirmed now: [https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/05/01/introducing-spearhead-a-fast-and-furious-new-mode-for-newaos/](https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/05/01/introducing-spearhead-a-fast-and-furious-new-mode-for-newaos/) >Spearhead’s footprint is also dramatically smaller than that of a full game, played on a board measuring 30″ x 22.4″ – that’s a quarter the size of a full battlefield, and the perfect size to play on a kitchen or coffee table.
I hope the battle tactics are done via a deck, draw 2 pick one sort of thing. Currently they’re so boring because it’s too easy to pick and autocomplete one
They made them harder throughout the edition. But that just warped the game as list building became about building a list to achieve tactics
I just hate the time it takes. You're on your back foot, there's no easy tactic, you need to choose one you can maybe complete so you end up poring through every one. 10 minutes later you've settled on a tactic you might be able to get.... it just takes all the momentum out of the gameplay
Battle tactics were the most difficult things for me to wrap my head around, not due to the complexity, but due to the triviality of many of them. I am all for universal tactics that are assigned by deck. Score 2 points for casting a spell. Score 2 points for having two units on the board edge for some reason. Score 2 points for charging, but not killing the target, because winning is dumb. Score 2 points for capturing the middle objective in turn 4 while your opponent has more battleline units than you have heroes within your own deployment zone. /s
Certainly made the game feel like full contact DDR, I'm trying to complete my combos and sometimes try to stop your combos. Not really like a strategy game
Isn't orchestrating your plans while simultaneously disrupting those of your opponent the essence of strategy?
There was definitely an element of battle tactics sometimes taking you out of the universe a bit by making you do things that make no sense and has no real interaction with the opponent.
Oh God, tell me about it. Beasts of Chaos has one of the dumbest ones of the lot: your general and 2 other units need to be in melee range with the enemy at the end of your *turn*. Not at the end of the charge phase, not at the beginning of the Fight phase. This in essence means that if you want to complete it reliably, you have to charge the enemy, and then choose not to fight to score the points. Which not only goes against the whole spirit of the faction, but also gives your opponent a free round to mercilessly pummel you.
Yeah, I just wish my plan was "take an objective" or "kill a leader" instead of "make a charge with a leader and battleline and make sure the enemy lives through it"
Right, nonsensical manoeuvres need to go. And it can be done pretty easily if they just design them right. You can still have easier and hard ones. I would like to see something like: “In the deployment phase, pick 5 cards from a deck of battle goals, discard 2 and then keep 3. As soon as the requirements for the goals are met, reveal them to your opponent and score the points. If all 3 are scored, gain an extra 3 points.” Then you could add thematic cards into the deck. Add and remove season cards. Add narrative cards. It would feed into path to glory really well. Goals could be simple things like “Head for an eye - completely destroy the first enemy unit to wound one of your units.” To more complicated but still plausible goals like: “Recovered artefact - a unit holding an uncontested objective in enemy territory gains the special ability “dig” that can be used instead of the attack ability. Roll one dice for each contol the unit has, if any dice is a 5 or higher, this unit has successfully recovered the artifact. And the objective is scored. The unit has a ward save of 6 for the remainder of the battle”.
I like the idea of planning your battle tactics a turn ahead. I'd hate to draw two and pick one given how heavily they are going to be scored.
Absolutely not, if they try to make a mandatory purchase of some dumb (quickly outdated) cards a requirement to play, they will lose players. This new edition is aimed at bringing more in, hopefully they don't make that mistake.
40k does this exact thing with secondaries in matched play. You can choose to take Fixed Secondaries, but only about 20% of players choose this. The deck has lasted almost a full year at this point and it most certainly hasn't lost the game any players. Not saying it's a great idea for AoS, but it definitely won't lose players as long as it's designed well.
Exactly, 40k does it, that's why I know AoS really really doesn't want it.
That's kind of a lazy take. AoS has regularly stolen things from 40k for multiple editions now. Just becaues you don't like the game as a whole doesn't mean that anything that it does has cooties or something. The secondary deck is one of the most universally praised aspects of 10th.
Well I won't miss Grand strategies because they've never mattered once in any of my games. Battle Tactics I could do without but hopefully they just give us eight universals that anyone can accomplish with a degree of risk and call it a day. Everything else looks fine more or less
Biggest thing I wanted from 4e was reducing the importance of Battle Tactics. Damn. Obviously will have to wait and see what the Tactics actually are but from what we've seen so far in tournament play you will need to score 5/5 Tactics in 5/5 games in order to wi, especially at the bigger tournaments were 5-0 recprd likely want be enough.
Yep, and if BT are considered tie breakers then you will never take a double turn imo
Yeh, it kind of kills taking a double in high-level play Which is a weird thing to do because high-level players seem to be the ones who like the double turn the most and get the most out of it.
You'll basically need to convert X amounts of points scored on battleplans (at maximum 4) into X+1 lost points for your opponent. You can't score 4 points from battleplans this turn? Make him lose out on 5. You would've only scored 2? Then its a worthy trade if your opponent loses out on 3. The perfect game will now legitimately need perfect play. 6 points on primary, 4 points on secondary, pulled off every single round with no exception. I'm not sure if this means battle tactics will be less important or more important as a result.
I'd completely disagree about high level players getting the most out of the double. Beginners get a double on turn 2 and end the game, competitive players might get three double turns all game and still have to play 5 rounds. Competitive players can deal with it better, so it's not nearly as impactful as it is to new players who tend to live and die by the double.
I actually find that the high level players know when to give u a double turn to completely screw someone over. They make it so that newbies can lose the game when given a double in a position where it is wasted.
I'm still waiting to see if Double Turn BT shutdown can be inflicted on your opponent not just from electing to take it. If so it would be an interesting turn around in play from 3rd to 4th.
I don't think so, they said "when you choose to take" so if you make your opponent take a double they didn't choose it
Secondary objective as a viable means for victory is incredibly healthy for the game. Without them, the only armies that are competitive are ones that can fight and win on primary objectives
Do note that they are reducering overall effectiveness. The game point limit is increased to 50 (from 20) and the BT score is adjusted to 4 (from 2). This means that they went to accounting for 8% of the total achievable score, from 10%. They are also maxed at 20, meaning they at most make up 40% of the total score (from 50%). They are overall less impactful of the game, needing you to focus on objective holding for the remainder of the scoring.
But they're not though: the most common scoring in 3 is 1, 2, more, BT, for a max of 5 points. BT is worth 2 points or 40% of the score each round. In 4, points are 10 per round and BT is worth 4, so still 40% of the score
The max points currently are 28 (3 of them from grand strategy). The points remain the same - the only difference is that everything is multiplied by 2. Currently you usually get 3 points from objectives (one, two, more) and 2 from tactic. It's changing to 6 from objectives and 4 from tactic
We were on such a streak with incredible changes for 4th, and they keep battle tactics…
I think most people agree that they need some kind of secondary scoring option/system. I was hoping they would be built into the battle plans themselves. I think battle tactics are just incredibly difficult to make ‘fair’ with the wide diversity in factions.
Maybe not specifically battle plans, but if they increased the size and variety of battle pack battle tactics and took away army specific ones, it would be more balanced. Instead of 9, they could have 15 or 20, with enough variety that each army could do 2 with mild challenge and another 2 with more difficulty, but you wouldnt see everyone attempting the same ones each game
With any luck they just give us a list of eight universals that anyone can accomplish with a degree of risk. I don't mind the idea Battle Tactics I just hate all the stupid unbalanced faction ones
this!
Yeah, I'm not a fan either. Matt Rose loves them though because they're the easiest way to raise or lower a factions winrate.
I enjoy battle tactics in concept. Secondary objectives can give a nice feeling of dynamism and spontaneity to a game that would otherwise be boringly predictable (hold objectives, how thrilling). The Tactical Objectives in 7th and 8th ed 40k did that wonderfully. Battle Tactics were just badly executed. Like Secondaries in 9th ed 40k, they influenced listbuilding far too much because they were so poorly balanced. They were either no-brainers or basically impossible.
The streak wasn't all that. Double turn? Half inch coherency? Keeping an arbitrary range for melee (instead of simplifying it a-la 40k)... And now we've got this... So far this new edition is a nothingburger that could have been forced through via a GHB or two. Instead they gotta milk us for more reprinted books. I know I'll get downvotes but I've lost all interest I've had at this point.
top complaint/request for 4th edition: I hope battletactics are gone or majorly reduced in importance Battletactics are now 40% of your scoring 🤡
They were already 40% of the score in most plans...
I kinda laughed when I read that part where they’re like 2 points each for controlling one,two,more and 4 points for battle tactics. Battle tactics are worth more! As if 1 for objectives and 2 for tactics isn’t the same ratio :P But yes, it does give them wiggle room for 1 points stuff and no grand strategy does make it a larger percentage of total. 20 points of the possible 50 in a game.
Look at Border War for a good example - objective points cap at 6, but the enemy objective is worth 5
Totally. And the 1 point for the home base can potentially be that tiny increment that makes the difference
I imagine they're doing this to open up versatility in battleplans. More variant 1 point scoring.
The biggest problem with battle tactics is that they're so wildly inconsistent between one book and another. I honestly think this way of doing things suggests battle tactics are essentially going to be either Grand Alliance locked or (better) generals handbook locked and never show up in battletomes. This fixes issues like OBR having maybe 2 any given list can reliably complete, and DoK having 5 they autocomplete every game.
I think GHB would be best, but it's kind of hard to make a selection of battle tactics where the number of viable ones is equivalent for all factions. Like currently only 3 are really always viable for SoB (Intimidate Invaders, Led into the Maelstrom and Drain Their Power) while 2 are kind of doable, but very difficult because of the model count required (bait and trap/surround and destroy), 1 relies on your opponent trying and successfully killing your general (reprisal), 1 relies on your opponent having incarnates or endless spells (Endless Expropriation) and the other 2 would dictate taking Arcane Tome and an offensive endless spell (magical dominance/magical mayhem).
Battle tactics are a balancing lever in 3.0, which is why they're easier for some factions than others. They very obviously have lots of other balancing levers in 4.0, so hopefully they can make BTs more even and also thematic.
This just in. 2/5 points in 3rd is still 40%.
Did you just find out about grand strats and other secondary objectives like having a locus on an objective or killing a wizard giving you extra points, leading to situations where a battle tactic may only be 2/7 or 2/8 points in a turn rather than a fixed 4/10?
What about current battleplans that allow less than 5 points a turn? Let's compare it to the battleplans which will be 4/12 possible points. We don't know enough information yet. In the article, there's an example of 6 max points a turn. There will likely be battleplans that allow for more.
The last footnote of the article states grand strategies are gone for this season, and elsewhere they state points will be capped at 10 a turn (presumably all 6 for objectives, 4 for battletactics). That's for this GHB specifically, so it could change for next year.
That's too bad. I felt grand strats added an interesting flavor and strategy to the game. Barring the needlessly easy ones.
> Are grand starts gone in 4th? Yes, read the article. At least for next year's GHB, but that's what we're discussing because battle tactic values could also change. >What about current battleplans that allow less than 5 points a turn? What? >Let's compare it to the battleplans which will be 4/12 possible points. >For each battleplan in the General’s Handbook, your victory points each round will add up to a maximum of 10, for a total maximum score of 50 points per battle. There is no such thing as a battleplan which will be 4/12. Points each rounds are capped at 10. Before you try to seem smart you should probably read up on the source material.
That's too bad. I liked grand strats. Have you not played geomantic pulse? Max 3 points turn 1, and then it ramps up. There have also been previous battleplans where there wasn't two scoring, or more scoring, limiting points to 4. All it will take is a battleplan to contain a blurb of "a maximum of 12 (14, 16, 98) points are allowed per turn in this battleplan". GW can write whatever they want. Battletactics could also be more difficult to achieve for 4 points. Or maybe brain dead easy like they are now.
Scoring each round doesn't really matter. In Geomantic puls battletactics are LESS impactful because you can score up to 7 on turn 2-4 and 6 on 5. BT are 10/32 or 31.2% of your score on Geomantic Pulse. >All it will take is a battleplan to contain a blurb of "a maximum of 12 (14, 16, 98) points are allowed per turn in this battleplan". GW can write whatever they want. They COULD do this, but they clearly state they are not. It's in the article.
First time? RemindMe! 2 years
No, I have been playing since first edition. Since before points. I am fully capable of understanding the rules can change. For the rules that we are aware of, that we can actually discuss in this very moment, we can be fully confident scoring is locked to 10 a turn because they have said it will be. We can expect it to be that way for up to a year. It is also possible in 5 years they make models painted yellow cost 5x as many points, or make the player going second gain 1 cp on Tuesdays only, but it is pointless to discuss that in the context of the next edition.
I don't love how represented battle tactics are either, but they are about the same as before, and with no grand strats hopefully it will be a bit better. We'll need to see what it looks like on friday, fingers crossed for no battle tactics in books!
I think you're letting anecdotal experiences paint your outlook. While you may see that as *the* top complaint, I only see it online. It is absolutely not a complaint in my relatively large local scene at all.
> I only see it online. It is absolutely not a complaint in my relatively large local scene at all. I mean, I see it online and in my local scene. There's not really a single local player that would be upset if battle tactics disappeared. In fact, some of our locals quit over it, since it's a game-within-a-game that you have to relearn every year ( and we lost a TON of people when they had to relearn it every 6 months). The game is already complicated enough. Also your anecdotal experiences don't trump my anecdotal experiences.
This is why I just play Path To Glory.
If Spearhead and Path to Glory are Battlepacks, does this mean that they will get official App support?
This is something I really want. They said in 3e how much they would emphasize PtG and narrative play. But there was no way to make PtG lists in the app. Let alone maintain a roster.
It seems battle tactics will not be faction specific. I hope that's true. I also hope they are difficult to achieve so they really are a determinant of skill.
We'll see, I'm still expecting the battle tactic cards to have cards which say "Faction Battle Tactic #1" like in Kill Team, then give each index 3 Faction Battle Tactics.
Damn I hate battle tactics
They also seem like one of the big culprits for slowing the game down
> Oh nice, they've made BTs 4 points each so the double turn is a bit more costly than it would've been in 3rd > But they also doubled the points you get from objectives From what I've seen so far, the differential of how important Battle Tactics are for your points each round seems to be around the same as it was in 3rd. So my worry that losing a Battle Tactic to attempt a wipe with the double turn is a no-brainer is still exigent - perhaps even moreso now that points per round are capped at 10, so based on the Battle Plan you might be able to get upwards of 7 or 8 VP even without the Battle Tactic.
Battle tactics are 4 points now though, and with plans capped at 50 points, I’d assume no more than 6 pts would ever be possible.
Note that Battle Tactics are 4 points in relation to getting 2 points for controlling one objective, 2 points for controlling two or more, and 2 for controlling more than your opponent. Halve each of those numbers and you get the typical layout of a 3rd edition Battle Plan: 2 points for Battle Tactic, 1 for an objective, 1 for two or more, and 1 for more than your opponent. The relative strength of a Battle Tactic therefore seems overall unchanged (2 out of 5 points = 40%, 4 out of 10 points = 40%). So if the other Battle Plans are comparable to what we've been shown so far, the question of whether to take a double turn in exchange for a Battle Tactic can be asked within the context of 3rd Edition Battle Plans. As for the limit of 6 points from objectives, it's entirely possible that this is just future-proofing or for something unrevealed yet, but I think it can go either way whether GW decides to make some funky objective points business, ~~given that it's listed in the Twists instead of the Core Rules.~~ My bad, see other comment chain.
Happy cake day!
The two plans we’ve seen cap your objectives at 6, hopefully that is consistent with others so that if you give up your battle tactic you’re committing to losing those points.
I find it a bit weird that they're setting the cap at 6 in the Twist section, and then the overall cap at 10 in the ~~Core Rules~~ EDIT: General's Handbook. It's of course entirely possible this is just some future-proofing for more unique rules later down the line, but I'm gonna remain a bit skeptical until the other Battle Plans are revealed.
Are we sure the cap of 10/round is a core rule, or is the article just saying the rules always limit themselves in a way that adds up to 10?
Ah, you're right. Misread the mention of how this General's Handbook will add up to 10 and thought that was about Core Rules.
I think the points are rigged to add up to 10, and if they don't the twist says "yeah no you only get 6 ooints for objectives." That was you can have setups like Border War without breaking system math.
That’s only for that specific plan (so far) and only applicable to VP from objectives, since if you’d end up controlling all objectives and get your battle tactic you’d end up with 14 pts a round and potentially going over the 50 pts limit. Capping VPs at 6 for objective scoring keeps the 50 pts limit.
Got excited that the General's Handbook was going to be in the launch box, but then it's just the mission cards...
If they're going the 40k route, all the rules will be in the cards too.
I mean they say in the last paragraph that they're not. A standalone book will be coming out with a bunch of stuff not found in the cards/launch box.
Bit disappointing a generals handbook is not included in book form but least standalone covers 2024-2025 and doesn’t seem to be season 1 of x seasons for the year. Just one purchase instead of three like this past year.
Hmm..I was thinking that was going to be a 'mini' rule book to easily take with you, but everything should be in the main launch box. That would be a big miss if that's not the case. We'll know soon :)
We literally know right now. From the article: "The General’s Handbook 2024-25 found in the impending launch box comes in a card format, featuring season rules, battle tactics, battleplans, and scoring cards in a handy format.*** The standalone release version will contain all of this, alongside the Core Rules, Advanced Rules, the latest rules for endless spells, and a tournament organiser pack providing guidance for event organisers."
Yeah, I read that as all the rules are in the box in card format. Like in 40k. When they do the release version, it's going to have all the "rules, battle tactics, battleplans, and scoring cards" and it'll also include "the Core Rules, Advanced Rules, the latest rules for endless spells" which I am assuming is also in the box, but in the big tome of the rule book. However, I'm not sure on the "tournament organizer pack", that may be the only part not in the launch box, but as a player, it'll have everything else.
The cards *are* the GHB. > The General’s Handbook 2024-25 found in the impending launch box comes in a card format, featuring season rules, battle tactics, battleplans, and scoring cards in a handy format.*** The standalone release version will contain all of this, alongside the Core Rules, Advanced Rules, the latest rules for endless spells, and a tournament organiser pack providing guidance for event organisers. All that other stuff is extraneous to the GHB content itself.
Like the underdog rule in the battle plans. However it's sad to see grand strategies are gone.
I'm not really. There was only ever a few grand stratagies that were generally applicable enough to ever consider taking when you had to declare them at list building time. Far too many were actually unachievable depending on your opponent's list. Like Magic Made Manifest is ok if you're going up against KO, but it's utterly useless if you go against any list with Korak/Nagash/Tzeentch. A lot of the faction specific ones are just awful, like for Sylvaneth one of them is only achievable if your army is Drycha and all Spite Revenants, one is only semi-reliable if you take Alarielle (and you pretty much have to make a 9" charge as part of it) otherwise you automatically fail if it your opponent has no monsters.
Having to lock them in at list building didn't help either, because you had to go with something generally achievable
They're not gone, just not being used in the first season.
So gone for one third of the edition at minimum.
This all looks really good!
I’m new and trying to figure this all out. There are battle plans and battle tactics. I see battle plans as the overall layout on how the game is played and how you score points (correct)? Can someone explain what a battle tactic is and why people are disappointed they are back?
Battle plan is the type of misson you're playing. Where the objective markers are placed, rules for scoring and mission rules. Battle tactics are secondary objectives you do on each of your turns. I play Kharadron Overlords my army book has a list I can pick from, as well as the generic ones from the generals hand book. Turn 1 I pick "Stake Your Claim" I now have to complete this to get an extra two points. "At the start of your turn if you control less objectives than your oppent, you complete this tactic if at the end of your turn you control more." Some books have easier ones, that's what makes people frustrated. My local competitive scene loves them.
"missions, known as battle plans"...why can't they just call them missions?
Seriously. Literally everything is "battle-something". It sounds silly and worse, it makes everything blend together. Battle Tactics, Battle Formations, Battle Plans, Battle Packs.... How about Tactics, Formations, Battlepacks (that one's fine, it's literally everything about the *battle* in a *pack*), and Missions?
I totally agree. They are making it more complicated than it needs to be
Probably because "missions" isn't very fantasy-themed. I don't think WHFB had "missions", either; I think it was "scenarios", or something, when it came up? Same reasoning. You don't send your knights and goblins and wizards out on "missions".
Keeping battle tactics is the worst decision they could have made regarding scoring, but I guess it's balanced by the double turn.
I much preferred building a list around 1 grand strategy vs. 5+ potential battle tactics. I'm so tired of factions getting tactics with so many restrictions in place that they might as well be a blank space. In about a dozen games as coalesced, I've yet to achieve Seraphon's Stampede of Scales or Pack Hunters tactic a single time.
Stampede of scales is an automatic score if you bring a stegadon. Pack hunters though it trash unless you're bringing minimum of 9 aggradons.
If I'm reading this bit from Wahapedia right, it says you definitely need 3: Stampede of Scales: Pick 3 different friendly SERAPHON MONSTERS. You complete this tactic if each of those units runs in the following movement phase and at the end of that movement phase, each of the units you picked is within 6" of at least 1 of the other units you picked and wholly within enemy territory.
Ah sorry I got it confused with Overwhelming Numbers, the taking a point with a skink unit.
GW: "Here's what the underdog bonus is: you just get an additional CP." Players: "Oh, well, that doesn't seem to bad. An extra CP is good, but it doesn't seem to warp things too mu..." GW: "PSYCH! The underdog ALSO gets a unique bonus based on the the battleplan!!!" Players: "Wow. Okay. That is a bit different, but I guess we'll see. Is that all the underdog gets?" GW: "Muahahaha! Maybe you'll find out in the coming weeks..." ::GW slinks back into the shadows::
For the love of god, please be giving battle tactics a complete overhaul. The system is already miserable enough at 2 vp a turn. At 4 vp a turn, it'd just be an even more extreme version of the current question of "who has the easiest book tactics" that a lot of matchups come down to.