List building seems easier but is it? | Age of Sigmar 4th Edition
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- Welcome to #TheHonestWargamer.
============================================================================
All our Socials in one place: linktr.ee/theh...
PLEASE SUPPORT ON PATREON: / thehonestwargamer
CHECK OUT OUR AWESOME WEBSITE: thehonestwarga...
JOIN THE TWITCH GANG: / thehonestwargamer
OUR PODCAST FEED: / the-honest-wargamer
I would say people weren't picking subfactions because they liked the theme, but because it encouraged a playstyle they wanted to use. This change just makes that part more honest. I like the idea of going 'I want to play calvary heavy' and choose that first, then match it with either a 'subfaction' that already exists in the lore or homebrew my own. Also, when it comes to theme, the new organizational structure feels like how in medieval wars armies many times consisted of a variety of Lords and their personal forces.
If you've ever played Total War 3 Kingdoms this is how they do it and it adds great bit of depth to who you choose for armies, the medieval thing is exactly the vibe I got and I love it lol.
Agreed, I've never built an army around lore. I want to build /my guys/ with my own backstory, and then swap subfactions around based on the list. GW's change feels purely cosmetic, and won't affect me (or anyone I know) in the slightest.
I like the new hero with a personal retinue style list building, but I play Hedonites and that's pretty much their army lore so I think I'm biased.
I’m fairly new to AOS pretty much built my first army so I’m looking forward to getting stuck in to 4th edition, already impressed with the easier to understand format and the variety of factions and models! Seems that the new build is really user friendly especially for a beginner like myself
Welcome aboard buddy
@@thehonestwargamerstreams thanks very much!
Tbh this is making me want to try it out as well. This and 10th seems really focused on new players like me
@@SICCMR1874life I’ve been in to the painting side of the hobby for a couple of years but not really the gaming side so I’m very keen to get stuck in with the latest edition
More thematic armies, so tying units more to their thematic leaders is a great step for me
Interesting...this maybe the edition where I finally run my 120 skeleton 1000pts army...guess we'll see
2 Wight Kings and 6 reinforced skeletons let's goooooo!
Edit: it occurs to me that deathrattles are 20 per box, even though the unit size is currently 10. So you may even be able to one drop it with a single king if the base size switches to match the box
Do it i have a similar horde with crypt ghouls and its fun
I think it's really cool, I'm excited to see what it looks like. I think you're a little too worried about everything fitting into a regiment, I'm sure it's important, but that will be part of list building. I've never worried about have a 1 drop army, I can't see 1 command point stopping me from bringing what I want. I love building lists, I make 10x more than I play . it sounds fun.
That command point bonus really does feel like a death knell for auxiliaries.
You have armies thst know full well they arent getting a 1 drop, so plan around it, but they aren't about to hand out command points every turn.
That and pushing big named dhars even harder are kinda bummers.
That said, I like the idea of retinues for heros. And maybe its just the empire general in my head but theme and combined arms always went hand in hand for me and this feels like it promotes that. A variety of heroes will lead to a variety of troops naturally.
It reminds me of your review of FEC where you said you’d love to see 6 royal executioners running around, now just run an army FULL of them!!!!!
“CP are rare and super valuable”
“Least Auxiliaries gets 5 EXTRA CP PER GAME”
…so basically no one will ever take Aux, and we are back to stale list-building locked to certain heroes.
It’s like trying to Smash to Rubble the new Mawpit. If you fail, you suffer 3D6mw. That’s so incredibly punishing that no one will ever do it. Auxiliaries are the same.
Agreed
Yeah, giving the opponent +50% more CP seems like a *rock hard* "soft incentive".
We don't have the full picture, but it's very hard to see why I would ever consider bringing any auxiliaries
This was my thinking, yeah. The moment I saw that, I thought, "Oh, so Auxiliary units are just a mechanic that will never, EVER get used. Got it."
Just granting an opponent the choice of who goes first would have been enough to keep Auxiliary counts low. Only really used among players or armies that don't really care (which I understand can happen). Stacking extra CP on top of that, in an edition that self-identifies as CP Lite, is a bullet in the head of the Auxiliary Unit mechanic.
I guarantee that gets changed sometime mid-edition, when they realize they created a list-building rule that does nothing.
I think the additional CP is only for the first round, so it's not an extra 5, but an extra 1
@@johnhildenbrand2642 I wish it was this way. But it’s not.
“There are no limits on how many auxiliaries you can take, but there’s still a cost - each Auxiliary unit is deployed one at a time (as a single ‘drop’) and the player with the fewest auxiliaries on their roster gets one extra command point at the start of each battle round.”
I don't think there's been a single change announced yet where I've gone "yes, this is a change I like".
If they don't pull something I like soon then I will be sticking with 3rd edition.
Change will always trigger negative emotions, even if the result is neutral or good. The human brain doesn't like not being able to shortcut things by familiarity. It's gonna be okay, none of the changes look bad yet
I honestly think its one of those things where the game will be very different to start but then as they bring out updates and battletomes it will start to feel more like the AOS we know and love.
This is very similar to how conquest: the last argument of kings does things. I wonder if that was partially an inspiration for this system. It gives heroes and interesting new role in an order, as the main source of “unlocks” for other types of units.
All in all, I'm really looking forward to kitbashing some cool heroes, and making more of the army revolve around them might mean I have to up my game a little. Thanks for the great summary, I know a few friends that definitely chafe at the army building stage, rather than seeing it as a fun part of the game, so they might get pulled in for this round.
I feel like this will just reinforce spam lists. People are going to take the good hero that can take the good units, if a hero can only take bad units it's out, if a unit is locked behind a bad hero it's out. I think current list in AoS can look silly (6xKnight Vexillor + 6xAnnihilators etc.) but now they're kinda forcing you to build that way. It can have interesting gameplay if the Hero interacts to the units it's leading in any meaningful way but the 100~200pt tech choices are probably out.
Battle Formations are probably just Ultramarines->Gladius Task Force style renaming imported from 40k.
On the more positive side, it could be a really interesting balance point. Really good heroes who only come with poor troops vs mediocre heroes who have elite units.
I'd wait and see before going too negative.
So, from the perspective of just assembling my army, I like the idea of regiments. I think it could be cool to mix and match different KO regiments and squadrons to build a force
This is cool for Khorne you can have all the special lads now.
I'm excited to see more God models, on the table top. Especially now that my Archaon and Karazai are fully painted
Thank you Rob for all the great content this week! Very helpful
Sounds interesting, actually. Instead of Battleline units being the tax, or finding ways to make ridiculous units Battleline, the HEROES are the new tax. I don't hate it, but we'll have to see it in action.
i like this from a narrative perspective, like tying each hero to their personal retinue of units under their command. whether it makes for good gameplay on the table, we'll see I guess, but I'm mostly positive on this for now.
The commentary I have been waiting for.
This is similar to Middle Earth list building and it works really well....in a small model count skirmish game.
You pay for each model individually in lotr. Yeah, they can fit into a larger force, but this type of list building isn’t anything like lotr. Wish they would make it that way.
@@photonfartsqueeze6694 Based on the unit size system 40k adopted, it sadly seems unlikely...
Appreciate the videos, the GW articles are doing nothing to enthuse me, so it good to see engaging discussion. I will look at GW articles when we get full info, in the meantime look to you and Vince and paint up some test models and the army I want to use for 4th
I cant wait to see what 2 factioins have to wait 24 months for rules that allow them to maybe play a game. Its a fun thing i do for every edition. Feel free to place your predictions here fore who will be the forgotten armies this go round.
I can easily imagine it'll be similar, in a way to now, that players will either go minimum drop, or very high. Because they want a particular unit
No auxillaries as the opponent gets too many cp
I feel like we were mostly bullied in list building already in 3rd. Example - my Maggotkin had to really choose the Mortal side vs the Daemon side to be mostly effective thru their hero selection. I really hope that this new regiment system changes that, great vids as always!!!
This seems like it may actually be more restrictive in needless ways.
I like this change. It’s how I tend to build my armies anyway. I don’t like the idea of getting away from the theme of units and armies
Regarding the thematic approach. I think they mainly mean that you can now really express the theme's you want to explore, and if a Battle Formation fits a certain existing, or non-existing background, you can still play it that way. It just means more freedom to explore your own theme a bit more, at least to me.
I'm new to AoS and I'm planning on getting my first army with 4th edition. But this army building sounds very close to our leader system in 40k. You get a character that has the leader triat and each leader can be attached to a certain list of units listed on their data card. The generic heroes can also get a buf for pts (+1 hit/wound for units it was leading). Epic/Named ones don't get this given they have other buffs.
There isn't a dropping mini game for us thought so it's not required but it is powerful so lists are typically built around them. That one cp rules is brutal though
The example for what units heroes can take in their regiments seems to be fairly open. Vanari taking Vanari for example. I am not sure why so many people seem to think its going to be more restrictive than that but we will have to see. If it is open like I suspect there wont be any real problems because you would already take heroes that would buff certain key-worded units anyways.
I guess it all depends on the unit warscrolls. Lets say my Ironjawz Brutes are insanely powerful. I take Gordrakk who will unlock anything, so 30 Brutes. Then a Megaboss as General and 40 brutes. It feels like it promotes spam whilst still being able to stay low drops.
I agree that there seems to be a strong incentive to use regiments and take low/ no auxiliaries, but with basically 0 hard limits on what you can build now, some armies might be so strong they don’t care about drops or CP and players might need solid reasons not to just spam certain hero’s or troops. If that’s the case this could potentialy lead to a high variety of lists. 🤞😬
I loved everything about this when I first read it. There is one Downside you brought up that I'm actually onboard: the 40k detachment rule instead of subfactions is a major loss. Still liking the fact that I`ll be able to bring Brokk in whichever fleet composition I like though...
I love how many systems from Lord of The Rings are finding there way into other games. I love LOTR
Thanks for another banger Rob! Glad to see an AOS video not complaining about models they had abandoned in a pile of shame from 6 years ago now
Or “I was just about to buy an entire army of those”
@@martinjrgensen8234😂
They said the heroes display what units they can take, so unless a mawkrusha says it can take mawkrushas, they’ll be locked behind Kragnos, or you’ll need to field 3 regiments of 1 maw krusha plus their one additional unit.
Going first is still going to be the order of the day for my Kharadron Overlords because I'll not only get to alpha shoot fragile armies like the Lumineth when I want to, I'll also take the extra CP in an army that is hungry for them(Because currently, the person going second in a Battle Round gets an extra CP). Good news for me, I guess. I'll just do what I always do now: Minimize drops.
Games Workshop's colour schemes have never inspired me, but I do love the lore of the game. My army's lore allows it to work in service to any of the Skyports(Subfactions), so I still get the full variety of list building while still having it make sense to me as a lore hound, and I'm sure most people who create stories around their armies do the same thing. Paint however you want to, hobbyists. :D
The difference between a theme and spam is not how good it is, it's the intention. A theme is about making a story, spam is about abusing rules to win games. They are not the same thing.
So what I said
I’ll be curious to see if the sub faction rules include a line that says “all regiments can include this unit” as opposed to making certain units battle line
There is also no verminlord for clan moulder.
I will paint new clanrats even tho I own +120 painted but they will be the last thing to do. Let them slowly retire
The system where some units bacame battlelines was interesting, but it was really hard to parse some lists "oh yeah this is battleline because of x". Otherwise I liked the core tax or battleline tax here, you had to take low rank unit and not spam high tier units.
Every time GW drops the troop/battleline requirements those models disappear from the table and everyone just plays the elites and bigger models.
My kharadron overlords need more units
This feels well intentioned but like it will also lead to exceptionally gamey and restrictive list building. I'm imagining a scenario where an entire section of an army is locked behind a hero so bad that it's just a waste of 150+ points meaning those are never taken, leading to what we kind of see in current 40k where there's really like a small handful of datasheets that you take in the one good detachment you have.
you can still take the units just not as a single drop
@@rickisparkles and then lose a CP because you have auxilaries
I definitley hoped that theyd do something about army composition in 4th. Whilest I can see theme in some lists Im personally really opposed to spam lists. I dont want to see 8 Steam Tanks and 2 heroes or 200 Zombies + Support or 20 Sharks Idoneth although Ill admit that that might just be a pesonal thing. In my opinion list building should centre around putting different units in your army to create a whole picture, so combining different strengths or adding other things to compensate for weaknesses instead of just playing as much of the strongest thing available. I come from old Warhammer Fantasy, where I still feel like lists looked quite varied in terms of units appearing and in 40k it also feels like tho there might be a strongest thing, because of lower point costs per thing + the rule of three lists still have more things in them and that I really like. I often feel like I want to fit multiple cool thigs in my lists but quickly run out of points (since I need so many points for support and reinforce) or that the indivual things when not creating the list around them feel too weak. I can see tho that pushing variety of units in one list in AoS can be kinda difficult. Skaven or SEC might have the roster to do this but for example Fyreslayers will quickly run out of units since their roster is so small which I guess is another topic I could ramble about for hours :'D
So on topic of this video xD I dont know how I feel about the changes. Im excited to toy around in list building since its quite a bite different now which if course is a positive. The changes to Hero Traits I really like. I hate the Auxilary thing because its not a soft shove towards regiments. Youll suffer a lot if youre oppont gets so much more of a scarce ressource because you wanted to try a fun unit without the hero. Im also generally scared that list building might become rather spammy with no restrictions and whilest I can see the fun of 3 Mawcrushers for me at least it loses the "This is an army" feel but I might just be a boomer.
There should be strong incentives to not be low drop.
The system pushing most armies into 2/3 drop defeats the purpose of the system and pushes a lot of games back into coin flips for prio.
I’d like to see my Sancrosanct stormcast come back 😢
Me too bud
Have to say that AOS 4 seems much more interesting than 40K right now. Very tempted to jump in as the models have always been awesome and the factions have super background. The Deepkin and flying Dwarfs are super cool.
I wonder if they will change some horde units to be base 20 reinforced to 40 to get around the only one reinforcement thing or if they are trying to get rid of hordes in favour of small units?
I feel like this probably won't even affect my Hedonites very much except possibly via Ally/Coalition rules (depending on how those shake out) - just because running Hedonite Mortals is uh... a very short list.
I d o like the concept of building armies riund heroes, i personally think thats realky cool. Will it be better than now depends so much on who unlocks what.
Hopefully it makes fir sime interesting decision points in list buildkng rather than a bunch of obvious defaults.
FEC will finally be able to play unique characters as something other than Hollowmourne. 😂
Less Auxiliarys mean 5 extra CPs and most likely less drops so while it looks like list building is easier it's still going to be restrictive.
Thing they should have said take what you want and roll of for T1 then you would really have to thing about lists and deployment
Hooray everyone is going to take the obvious god model choice to minimize drops and just spam the best things! This is going to create extremely ubiquitous army builds and a lack of variety. In my opinion.
Interesting to see how this works out, once we see the battle scrolls. Will hero/general selection determine unit choice, because the heroes are so powerful... Or will we really be focused on the units and then the hero selection is really determined by which units you want? Which is the dog and which is the tail? Or is it a Tzeench dog with multiple tails and no body?
More units taken more often and probably Rule of Three if it's a 40k port over will not be compatible
Love the idea of this, but being violent sure that big named characters are just gonna unlock everything i kinda hate this. I hope those special characters have this regiment unlocking as part of thier price, but knowing GW i doubt it.
Seems like Warhammer 5th edn,in terms of Bretonnians Heroes got “knightly Virtues” or Chaos giving “gifts”
I think the system is interesting, but whoever finishes deploying first getting to choose who goes first will still be the competitive choice and drive list building.
Interesting that Ravage Stars works in this way and now GW comes up with something similar .
So does conquest
How do you think: after the recent «Sacrosanct Bone'Beasts Genocide» tragedy will there be people who want to serious play AoS using the Legends rules? I see that such group was created on reddit, what prospects might they have?❤🔥
I hope they don't allow mixing army regiments with each other, i hate the soup style and it takes away from the theme of the game if you just mix everything and take whats good.
They Simply copies the 40k detachments those copied the AoS warcroll battalions
They are Simply recyclinh adjusting
They are finding ways to encourage "meta-chasing" so that ppl buy new minis as much as possible. It's so obvious it's disgusting
I'm feeling mostly optimistic about the rules changes, but tying units to heroes does have me worried. I hope most units can be put with more than just 1 or 2 heroes. I'm fine with not every hero being able to lead every unit, but I'd hate if the opposite extreme winds up being the case instead. That would basically take the creativity in list building completely out of the game. Hopefully they strike a fair balance between those two extremes. ::fingers crossed::
ya just seems like comp players just build a 1-2 drop with ZERO aux... doesn't seem thematic nor flavorful...
So does this make balancing easier? Meaning you no longer have to bloat points for a troop unit because they get busted from this one hero in particular but they aren't good otherwise? Since the two are intrinsically linked does that allow more fine tuning to happen in some way? obviously we don't have enough info yet for that to be a yes or no but food for thought.
I will say that if i can take Allies more comfortably. I will be far happier.
No mandatory battleline is great
I dont see much of a problem with that. I dont like spamming the same hero anyway and usually play one of each. For me it makes sense that a Liege Kavalos and not a Boneshaper would lead Deathrider into battle.
So now less drops not only gives you priority but also cps. It’s weird
Welcome to 40k 10th where specific leaders (heroes) are hard locked to specific units. Just awful.
Don't love that
I think the "first to deploy your army has priority " rule is just too impactful for many armies. I think.
This incentive is too strong and creates.A world where players are encouraged to simply pick the units that can fit into an army with the lowest drops possible rather than what they might like to play instead of its aesthetics or thematics.
Just another example of how the people making the rules DO NOT play like the people actually competing in the game.
in their heads they think people will go for like 4-7 drops with a bunch of auxiliaries. Its still just gonna be people sacrificing theme in order to stay minimum drops.
GW play testers live in a bubble. Their ostrich heads are stuck in the sand. I have a hilarious true story related the the GW Tacoma GT where a head play tester said they intentionally created a mission to see how it would be received even though it was busted and broken on arrival. Mid-game
why should GW write rules for the competitive crowd? this already ruined 40k
@@cooljoe500 because the meta/rules drives sales. Otherwise casual players wouldn’t care and could make their own rules, use 3.0, etc. you’re on honest wargamers CZcams page which analyzes competitive AOS, that kind of answers your own question.
What's a regiment? (Asks in SoN)
So they are killing the deeply narrative list building just like in 40k 10th. Didn't expect that in the beer and pretzels setting of the 2 but well. Guess I'll not be playing and gw games anymore
They are just doing prett much the same as with 40k 10th
Fyreslayers players, whats unit diversity
Hopefully they tune down the spamming om aura buffs
Of course this still remains to be seen but it is my impression that the strength of the heroes in your army Relative to one another will be a very important factor in your list making process. I think we are going to see many armies with the exact same leader and combination of heroes to follow.
Wait this actually looks fine?! I was worried, but we might be good?!?!?! We’ll except SCE, STD, BoC, and BS…
Ive said it a few times now, but this is exactly what I was hoping for and Im really excited for 4th. Pretty similar to Conquest which has lots of fun mechanics
The dripfeed continues. The warscrolls and then their corresponding points will really help us determine if this new system of building armies is better or worse. Then its battleplans i guess.
As a note of feedback, take it or leave it: you use the word "interesting" to describe various situations and things about the game. I feel you have lost the meaning of the word by using it so liberally. Please explain what you mean by interesting. I get confused by the either positive or negative connation when hearing it. Otherwise, thank you for sharing your opinion.
Sargon of Akkad into warhammer now?
Hope not as he's a bell end
@@thehonestwargamerstreams you are him
Thats basically "Conquest, Last Argument of Kings". Nice Steal Games Workshop
A classic "inspired by"
I love Aos models, but the game sounds like absolue garbage