AoS 4th Edition is nearly here...

[Kilvakar]

Honestly, the most annoying bit about OC is that it probably won't matter all that much in 9 out of 10 scenarios.
But when it does matter, there is a lot of potential for weird sheningans and annoying bookkeeping.
It's a prime candidate for frustrating gameplay moments.

I personally think it's going to be relatively impactful in most games. Each unit has their basic control score, but so many heroes, army abilities, spells, and other random effects all center around control score. At the very least, you'll have to do some tedious back and forth calculations on a lot of your objectives every round unless it's uncontested.

Meh, given how often changes come a GHB later than they should, I'm not surprised. I'm guessing someone just forgot to update their point cost formulas or something

They didn't just forget though, they increased a lot of them without buffing them at all. The Carnosaur does slightly more damage than before, but not enough to justify going up over 100 points, lol! At least the EotG went down a lot and is at least useable now, if still highly unreliable. But despite the general edition sweep of raising stuff by 10-30 points across the board, our monsters are still in a position where they feel very expensive, so taking one is a big commitment in your list building, but they don't really feel worth actually taking to use in combat. This has been an issue with our monsters in particular since I started AoS. Other factons' 300+ point monsters actually feel like they can hit hard and survive in combat for more than a couple turns. Ours have always been either somewhat strong but overcosted, or cheaper but very weak. I don't know why GW thinks it would be unbalanced for us to have an actual single-model big beatstick unit like a lot of other factions do.

I mean, we've spend 2 editions stuck with an army with a split personality thanks to the clashing playstyles of our subfactions.
It took them 3 editions to decide saurus should get vaguely lore-appropriate stats.
We didn't get any actual endless spells,despite having some of the most powerfull wizards in the lore.
In general, our magic has always been kind of uninspired and dissapointing, even if it was reasonably effective.
We've never had prayers, despite the faction prominently featuring several castes of priests.
In the lore of AoS we are either punching bags, or deus ex machina; and are rarely featured for more than a few sentences.
For a long time, the best thing to do with our most powerfull wizards was to not cast spells.
The great plan is somehow even less coherent than it was in WHF.
It's the only faction that hasn't really moved on from their WHF roots.

Seraphon are full of weird little contradictions and inconsistencies, I think GW simply doesn't really know what they want to do with Seraphon; both narrativly and mechanicly.

Yep. They've been terrible at writing our actual lore since the start of AoS. First they're Daemons of Order summoned from the memories of the Slann. Then they're not, just a bit more magical due to being in Azyr for so long. First we're supposed to be mysterious but important players in the setting, showing up to help the forces of Order when needed and keeping Chaos at bay. Then, we're just rather incompetent zealots who are actively playing into the schemes of other factions, including Chaos, rather than thwarting them.

As you said, we just don't get the same attention, both in game and out, that other factions get. I think that we still end up being a good army just because with so many different unit types, it always ends up working out that we have some good stuff. But we still get no prayers, no mount traits, no endless spells or invocations, no actual strong offensive magic outside of Kroak, generally underwhelming stats compared to almost every other faction's equivalent units, and terrible representation in the setting lore. I think the model refresh was amazing and much-appreciated, but I still wish that GW would bring on someone who actually likes Lizardmen/Seraphon to do some writing and game design. Seraphon honestly should be a lot more similar to Stormcast in how we play considering that we have so many different unit types that can fill so many different roles. But I think GW struggles with that type of design, they seem to prefer to focus on very specialized armies. Stuff like Ironjawz, DoK, KO, and Idoneth that have fewer models are easier I think to design armies for, because you have a very clear "this army does this" feel to them. Ironjawz charge and smash, DoK shoot and do magic, KO move and shoot, Idoneth charge do a lot of damage. But that's mostly due to the units they have all having a coherent theme of being really good at the army's specific playstyle.

More traditional, mixed-arms factions that have a lot of different unit types are GW's weakness. Seraphon literally have everything. We have spellcasters, melee troops, skirmishing troops, monstrous infantry, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, flying ranged cavalry, flying melee cavalry, attack monsters, tanky monsters, artillery monsters, assassin units, etc. So if the game designers were actually good at what they're doing, they would think of the army as a whole and how to balance each unit in it's role rather than consistently ignoring half the army and focusing on a few builds they decided they like. But that's an issue with AoS as as whole, not just Seraphon. They really like to encourage armies to focus on building their list around a specific unit type rather than the entire army.

Instead of battle formations buffing only one or two units, I think they should buff general playstyles instead. Some do, like the teleport one. But I wonder if it would be possible for them to come up with subfaction rules that buff broad groups of units instead of just one or two specific ones.

But honestly the real issue is still stats. When half your army has underwhelming or just plain poor profiles you're not going to see certain units getting any use. They also really limit being able to bring mixed-unit armies when they keep trying to shrink army sizes. I know a lot of people aren't too keen on returning to the rank and flank formations of WHFB, but AoS kind of feels like you're investing half your army's point limit on 1-2 key units and making the rest either designed to buff or protect those units, or just filler to sit on objectives. It would be really nice to see armies like Seraphon, Stormcast, Cities, Skaven, etc. bring a big variety of their wide model ranges to battle rather than hyper-focusing on a few of them.

 

[Canas]

I personally think it's going to be relatively impactful in most games. Each unit has their basic control score, but so many heroes, army abilities, spells, and other random effects all center around control score. At the very least, you'll have to do some tedious back and forth calculations on a lot of your objectives every round unless it's uncontested.

O yes, it'll be impactfull every game. But not every objective.
There's going to be plenty of objectives where its just 10 warriors vs 3 liberators or something fairly straightforward like that.
But the game-defining ones; those are going to be where lots of modifiers get stacked together and you're doing a bunch of accounting, or find yourself randomly dealing with stuff like a starpriest casting a spell on a target 36" away from the objective somehow affecting who controls the objective via a chain with an astrolith (seriously, who thought of that combo?)

They didn't just forget though, they increased a lot of them without buffing them at all

At some point they revealed that they use a giant excel sheet to calculate points; and the final formula is something like:
(x* wounds + y * save + z * damage output) * summoning tax
I meant that I wouldn't be surprised if they forgot to remove that summoning tax modifier from their sheets. Or at least, forgot it for some units.
It sounds like the kind of mistake GW would make

Seraphon honestly should be a lot more similar to Stormcast

Honestly; not just mechanicly, but even narrativly they are surprisingly similar. Or at least; the starborn are.
At their core; both are near-angelic beings; created with divine magic, send down from the heavens with the express purpose of fighting chaos.
The most noticeable difference with the SCE is that the SCE still have some humanity in them.

Anyways; in a lot of scenarios where Seraphon should show up to fight chaos, instead the SCE are used. And that's a major part of our lore being so poor.

More traditional, mixed-arms factions that have a lot of different unit types are GW's weakness.

It's kind of an issue with most modern games. They tend to go for competitive type playstyles; and competitive playstyles tend to focus on maximizing 1 win-condition; it's the most efficient way to play. So they go all in on 1 unit/skill/whatever. Mixed approaches tend to suffer as a consequence; even when mixed approaches should theoretically make sense for the kind of game (e.g. it's kinda weird that a wargame doesn't favour mixed arms given their effectiveness in real warfare.)

 

[- Q -]

Honestly, given the vast quantity of OC manipulating mechanics, and the high amount of reaction/trap card style mechanics,I think the frustrating combo's are simply a bit less obvious this time. Especially since they're new mechanics.

Though I do agree the streamlining does seem to have smoothed over some of the more rough edges. It's one of the general benefits of streamlining.


In addition to writers picking favorites there's also just issues with how they playtest.
GW never uses properly dedicated playtesters who go and try to break and stresstest the game in a organized manner. Whenever they discuss playtesting in a white dwarf article or something it's always just a bunch of semi-influential players playing a handfull of testgames and providing some general feedback. It's honestly amazing how amateur-ish a lot of GW's processes appear to be at times. And it causes a lot of mistakes.


I guess, count our blessings?
But yeah, it's astonishing that GW keeps getting away with releasing essentially half-finished editions and then drip-feeding updates.


It's the one thing they seem to have managed with the streamlining; most factions look more or less ok as a whole.
Or at least, don't seem significantly worse/better than the others.


If I'd have to make a guess; it's just left-overs from the previous editions. Basicly; blame the summoning tax


Cuz money But yeah, it's absurd.


Honestly; I just wish the game managed to stay stable for a while. Even if that means being stuck with a bunch of stuff I don't like. At least that way I don't have constantly question if it's worth buying a tome/codex or if it's liable to become invalid in a month. Especially when considering starting a 3nd or 4th faction that I'm not going to be playing as much as my 1st preference.

I think something went wrong with the forum's quoting system... those aren't my quotes.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I think something went wrong with the forum's quoting system... those aren't my quotes.

 

[Canas]

I think something went wrong with the forum's quoting system... those aren't my quotes.

it says I quoted @Kilvakar as far as I can tell. Weird.

 

[- Q -]

it says I quoted @Kilvakar as far as I can tell. Weird.

Strange. That's what I see now as well, but I had a notification and everything! Forum goblins spreading mischief!

 

[Kilvakar]

Sooo, how's it been going for everyone so far? Have people been getting games in? Been enjoying 4e? Not enjoying it? How are Seraphon playing? Is it all Aggradon spam all day? Or do we still have good magic? I'd love to hear how it's going since the core rules of 4e look great but the army rules/point costs/warscrolls just don't appeal to me, lol!

*Edit* Also, I thought this forum seemed pretty active through 2nd and 3rd edition, but seems to be pretty much died after the release of 4e. Is that because people don't like it? Or is it just the forum losing active posters?

 

[Egres]

I like it so far…. Played a spearhead competition and came 2nd with my nighthaunt’s … currently in a PtG campaign so far love it (I mean am 4-0 of course am happy lol) haven’t played a 2K game yet so will see!!

currently mostly monster list is what am running in PtG

 

[Canas]

*Edit* Also, I thought this forum seemed pretty active through 2nd and 3rd edition, but seems to be pretty much died after the release of 4e. Is that because people don't like it? Or is it just the forum losing active posters?

Bit of column A, bit of a column B.

Also, it probably doesn't help that there simply isn't terribly much to discuss about 4e.
A lot of potential choices have been removed (e.g. fewer traits/artifacts/spells/command abilities/fewer personal warscroll specific abilities/subfactions being simplified/etc.) and the choices that remain tend to have relativly clear niches making it fairly obvious when you should (not) pick that one.

Overal, there's just far fewer potentially interesting combo's to discuss.
Sure, you can still discuss what the optimal number of skinks is; but outside of the diehard theorycrafters most people aren't going to be interested in that discussion.

For all their flaws; older editions with their messier rules made for more interesting discussions.

 

[Just A Skink]

I will be interested to see what the Skaven and SCE battletomes will look like. That might be a bigger indication of what GW plans for 4th ed.

 

[Kilvakar]

I will be interested to see what the Skaven and SCE battletomes will look like. That might be a bigger indication of what GW plans for 4th ed.

Yeah, will be very interesting to see what the actual battletomes look like and how much they change/add to the basic index rules.

 

[Just A Skink]

Sooo, how's it been going for everyone so far? Have people been getting games in? Been enjoying 4e? Not enjoying it? How are Seraphon playing? Is it all Aggradon spam all day? Or do we still have good magic? I'd love to hear how it's going since the core rules of 4e look great but the army rules/point costs/warscrolls just don't appeal to me, lol!

*Edit* Also, I thought this forum seemed pretty active through 2nd and 3rd edition, but seems to be pretty much died after the release of 4e. Is that because people don't like it? Or is it just the forum losing active posters?

To your question; I've enjoyed AoS 4th Ed so far. I'm not super crazy about the regiment system and the (still) clunky rules wording. I do like that you have some options in your opponents phases. I'm not a good measure of how Seraphon is going, since I'm not a strong player. I think we are mid. But we do have some real hammer units in our Aggradons and Kroxigor.

Spearhead is fun from what I've played and plays relatively quickly. It's takes my friend and me about 1.5 hours to play a game. Seraphon has a pretty straight forward "punchy" force, that is not subtle or tricky.

Despite the fact that I like the forums, and would like to have the discussions back here, it seems like most of the AoS chatter has moved to the Discord.

 

[Killer Angel]

Despite the fact that I like the forums, and would like to have the discussions back here, it seems like most of the AoS chatter has moved to the Discord.

Back in time there was a truly healthful subforum, with many discussions. But there were also solid tactical contents, with my handbooks and other threads very useful both for beginners and more seasoned players.
Things that, alas, we are actually in lack of.

 

[Diablo]

What do you think of the 4.0 rules for Seraphon?
Which units do you think are good/strong?
What do you think of the Spearhead mode?
And how good do you think the Spearhead Seraphon army is?

 

[Just A Skink]

What do you think of the 4.0 rules for Seraphon?

Overall, I would say that the 4.0 rules are solid. It feels good to be able to take actions in your opponent's turn. Cavlary, Monstrous Cavalry (like Aggradons and Gore-gruntas), and Monstrous Infantry (like Kroxigor or Trogoths) seem to be very strong. Generally, most Monsters and Monster Heroes do no seem to be in a good place (of course, there are exceptions). I do not necessarily like the somewhat confusing/complex rules for Endless Spells, now called Manifestations. They are free to take, they can have big impacts, and (IMO) discourage army lists without some kind of wizard. That said, we have a very strong wizard in the Slann and a solid wizard in the Starseer. The Asterism rules for Seraphon are helpful, as it allows you to tailor to your playstyle or the opposing army a little bit. Seraphon hammer units can hit hard, but are still on the fragile side, so we need to pick our fights.

Which units do you think are good/strong?

Seraphon units I think are good (some from recent experience and some from what shows up in most lists). But, it's still early days.
-Heroes: Slann Starmaster; Starseer; Starpriest (but not as much); Kroak (not necessarily as good as a Starmaster); Scar-vet on Aggradon (if paired with Lancers); Carnosaurs are decent, but too costly for what they deliver; There is talk of the Stegadon Chief having enough synergy to see play.

-Cavarly & Infantry: Aggradon Lancers; Kroxigor; Kroxigor Warspawned (especially when paired with Raptadons); Raptadon Chargers; Hunters of Huanchi (Bolas or Dartpipes, but Bolas are better); Saurus Guard; Saurus Warriors.

-Monsters: Bastiladon with Ark of Sotek; Bastiladon with Solar Engine (but too many points)

What do you think of the Spearhead mode?

I like Spearhead for what it is. It's quick and pretty fun. The twists sometimes come into play enough to help. I like having the cards as a combo of tactics to score or commands to use. It does feel a little repetitive if you play the same armies over and over.

And how good do you think the Spearhead Seraphon army is?

Seraphon Spearhead is not subtle. With Spearhead being on a smaller board, Seraphon are a "charge and smash the right targets" army. The Carnosaur is okay in AoS, but in most Spearhead games I've played it is pretty strong (albeit swingy and still kind of fragile). Kroxigor are great into infantry (which is most of Spearhead) but, with just 3 Krox, they can also be fragile if they get charged or hit back too hard. Saurus Warriors are just okay, but they can stand their ground well with 2 wounds each.

 

[Canas]

What do you think of the 4.0 rules for Seraphon

Things have been streamlined considerably. While this has cleaned up a lot of messy nonsense, it also cut back on a lot of choices.
Especially things like magic, artifacts, traits, battalions which were important for personalizing your army have been simplified to the point the choice is almost gone. So there is a lot less personalisation and a lot less potential for interesting combo's. It also means that a lot of units can feel rather similar in their role/use as a lot of unique rules have been removed. It's especially noticeable when you end up in scenarios where your 1 option isn't really all that great (e.g. mystical unforging being the 1 defensive spell in its lore; but if the opponent doesn't really rely on rend it's useless)

A lot of the new stuff is also very game-y; as in it's moved further away from a wargame that tries to simulate orks and elves fighting in a vaguely realistic sense and moved more towards being an abstract game where you simply need to score points by plonking your unit on objectives.

On the bright side; readability is up massively. There's fewer unintended combo's. And there's more interaction thanks to command abilities that can be used in the opponents turn.The reduction in unique choices should also translate into an easier to balance game as there are fewer potential problems.

Overal it's fine; but it's weird to see how far removed we are from 1.0 at this stage; and sadly some cool stuff was lost along the way.

Which units do you think are good/strong?

Kroxigor & Aggredons seem to be doing great.

Slann are vital; but somehow they get more boring with each iteration. AoS desperatly needs a more inspired magic system so wizards can have something actually interesting to work with. Kroak seems pretty underwhelming.

Raptadons have potential.

Bastiladon ark of sotek is neat.

Everything else is more or less fine but nothing particularly amazing; or it's extremely reliant on 1 gimmick and if you don't like that gimmick they won't work for you (e.g. Hunters of Huanchi) .

What do you think of the Spearhead mode?

Too gamey for my taste with its reliance on twists and tactics. Also; the way certain factions counter eachother is more annoying in spearhead than it is in regular AoS simply because you have fewer units. It lacks subtility; with 99% of the rules having been removed and very few spearheads having even a handfull of interactions between their units. And with only 3-4 units in most spearheads it can be very swingy. One bad round of combat and suddenly a third of your army is wiped out.

Imho; spearheads should've been 6-7 units. With a focus on more minor troops (so nothing stronger than a kroxigor basicly). That'd naturally fix most of my gripes with it. Would also make the prices of spearheads more acceptable

It's fine for what it is though.

And how good do you think the Spearhead Seraphon army is?

It's fine; but kinda boring. Also; the complete lack of synergy is a bit dissapointing.

 

[Just A Skink]

Things have been streamlined considerably. While this has cleaned up a lot of messy nonsense, it also cut back on a lot of choices.
Especially things like magic, artifacts, traits, battalions which were important for personalizing your army have been simplified to the point the choice is almost gone. So there is a lot less personalisation and a lot less potential for interesting combo's. It also means that a lot of units can feel rather similar in their role/use as a lot of unique rules have been removed. It's especially noticeable when you end up in scenarios where your 1 option isn't really all that great (e.g. mystical unforging being the 1 defensive spell in its lore; but if the opponent doesn't really rely on rend it's useless)

A lot of the new stuff is also very game-y; as in it's moved further away from a wargame that tries to simulate orks and elves fighting in a vaguely realistic sense and moved more towards being an abstract game where you simply need to score points by plonking your unit on objectives.

On the bright side; readability is up massively. There's fewer unintended combo's. And there's more interaction thanks to command abilities that can be used in the opponents turn.The reduction in unique choices should also translate into an easier to balance game as there are fewer potential problems.

Overal it's fine; but it's weird to see how far removed we are from 1.0 at this stage; and sadly some cool stuff was lost along the way.


Kroxigor & Aggredons seem to be doing great.

Slann are vital; but somehow they get more boring with each iteration. AoS desperatly needs a more inspired magic system so wizards can have something actually interesting to work with. Kroak seems pretty underwhelming.

Raptadons have potential.

Bastiladon ark of sotek is neat.

Everything else is more or less fine but nothing particularly amazing; or it's extremely reliant on 1 gimmick and if you don't like that gimmick they won't work for you (e.g. Hunters of Huanchi) .


Too gamey for my taste with its reliance on twists and tactics. Also; the way certain factions counter eachother is more annoying in spearhead than it is in regular AoS simply because you have fewer units. It lacks subtility; with 99% of the rules having been removed and very few spearheads having even a handfull of interactions between their units. And with only 3-4 units in most spearheads it can be very swingy. One bad round of combat and suddenly a third of your army is wiped out.

Imho; spearheads should've been 6-7 units. With a focus on more minor troops (so nothing stronger than a kroxigor basicly). That'd naturally fix most of my gripes with it. Would also make the prices of spearheads more acceptable

It's fine for what it is though.


It's fine; but kinda boring. Also; the complete lack of synergy is a bit dissapointing.

I can see your points and your perspective of the game. I agree that the game might suffer from being a bit too over-simplified/streamlined. It does feel more "gamey" and less like two big armies crashing together. Maybe that's an aesthetic that some players don't mind?

One of the points with which I so disagree is that Hunters of Huanchi are not amazing. They are one of Seraphon's best units, especially so far in 4.0. It's not just because of their weapon abilities, but because of the role Chameleon Skinks have served for most of AoS. They are our only reliable "teleport" unit, albeit only if you deploy them in hiding. I do wish GW would give back their ability to return to hiding and teleport in later rounds. These little guys can regularly snag unattended objectives and hinder or pressure units. Their 5+ ward save is nice perk that helps them survive. And, their weapons abilities can be VERY useful.

I also think that Raptadon Chargers are better than just "has potential." Units of 5 can punch hard on a charge against standard infantry. A unit of 10 can punch hard even into elite infantry. It's a crazy amount of dice; 31 dice from lances and 30 dice from mounts. But they are fragile with just a 5+ save.

I agree that Spearhead armies do not seem that balanced. Even though I love Lizardmen, a Carnosaur in Spearhead is rather strong.

 

[Kilvakar]

A lot of the new stuff is also very game-y; as in it's moved further away from a wargame that tries to simulate orks and elves fighting in a vaguely realistic sense and moved more towards being an abstract game where you simply need to score points by plonking your unit on objectives.

I can see your points and your perspective of the game. I agree that the game might suffer from being a bit too over-simplified/streamlined. It does feel more "gamey" and less like two big armies crashing together. Maybe that's an aesthetic that some players don't mind?

That's a big part of how I'm feeling now. Especially with the whole "control score" mechanic they've added, it really feels like the game now focuses on "who can camp on these points the longest while occasionally killing something" rather than trying to be a wargame focused on defeating your opponent.

Also really mad at how they've given our monsters the short end of the stick again. For a game company that loves making so many big, cool-looking models you'd think they'd actually want people to be able to use them on the table. But I suppose selling 2-3 $60 troop boxes instead of 1 $60 monster kit makes them more money in the end.

I'll be honest, I'm actually not the biggest fan of all the reactions in your opponent's phase now. I know that's the number one response you get when asking people what they like about the new edition, but to me it's just extra stuff added in to keep track of that doesn't make up for everything that's being stripped away. I've said before that the base rules of 4e seem pretty good, but that's one part I could really do without. That, and control score.

Really interested to see how much battletomes add to each army though, when the Stormcast and Skaven books come out. I disagree with comments that the game is better balanced now. You still have some factions with an absurdly high winrate, which I'm sure will get nerfed like crazy over time, and factions that are in the trash as far as competitiveness goes. Ours is in the lower end of the middle, which isn't the worst place to be but not good. My first impressions are that we just....don't do much very well. I always preferred a more combat-focused playstyle over the "summon and teleport as many Skinks as possible" strategy, but it feels like they've taken all real depth out of playing the game, at least for our army, and replaced it with a very lackluster "throw this unit at the enemy and it will die, just hope it keeps them off the objective long enough" playstyle, given how we have some units that can hit decently hard but nothing survives long. We have zero shooting, which feels really weird, and while we still have good bonuses to casting it kind of feels like our spells are just "meh" when it comes to their usefulness.

Of course, other armies are probably feeling the same way given how much GW has stripped everything down with 4e, so I guess all our hopes lie with what they do with battletomes whenever those come out.

 

[Just A Skink]

That's a big part of how I'm feeling now. Especially with the whole "control score" mechanic they've added, it really feels like the game now focuses on "who can camp on these points the longest while occasionally killing something" rather than trying to be a wargame focused on defeating your opponent.

Also really mad at how they've given our monsters the short end of the stick again. For a game company that loves making so many big, cool-looking models you'd think they'd actually want people to be able to use them on the table. But I suppose selling 2-3 $60 troop boxes instead of 1 $60 monster kit makes them more money in the end.

I'll be honest, I'm actually not the biggest fan of all the reactions in your opponent's phase now. I know that's the number one response you get when asking people what they like about the new edition, but to me it's just extra stuff added in to keep track of that doesn't make up for everything that's being stripped away. I've said before that the base rules of 4e seem pretty good, but that's one part I could really do without. That, and control score.

Really interested to see how much battletomes add to each army though, when the Stormcast and Skaven books come out. I disagree with comments that the game is better balanced now. You still have some factions with an absurdly high winrate, which I'm sure will get nerfed like crazy over time, and factions that are in the trash as far as competitiveness goes. Ours is in the lower end of the middle, which isn't the worst place to be but not good. My first impressions are that we just....don't do much very well. I always preferred a more combat-focused playstyle over the "summon and teleport as many Skinks as possible" strategy, but it feels like they've taken all real depth out of playing the game, at least for our army, and replaced it with a very lackluster "throw this unit at the enemy and it will die, just hope it keeps them off the objective long enough" playstyle, given how we have some units that can hit decently hard but nothing survives long. We have zero shooting, which feels really weird, and while we still have good bonuses to casting it kind of feels like our spells are just "meh" when it comes to their usefulness.

Of course, other armies are probably feeling the same way given how much GW has stripped everything down with 4e, so I guess all our hopes lie with what they do with battletomes whenever those come out.

I hear you. I do think we have good hammers in the form of Aggradons and Kroxigor. But, they are best in 6-model units and it gets pricey to put many in a list.

Monsters generally seem to be in a mediocre place in 4.0.

I think the reactions give you more to do to help/hinder, but it is more to remember. Some of my buddies favor One Page Rules wargame more b/c of the back and forth. A turn is basically made up of I move/charge/fight/cast with a unit, then it's your turn to pick a unit and do the same. You take turns using a unit until all are activated.

I do hate we don't have much reliable shooting at all. In fact, Skinks don't have much of a roll in our army currently. Based on points, they are outclassed by Raptadons.

One of my friends heard in the reveal video that the battletomes are not that different from what we have. Which begs the question "Why bother?" I imagine that will change the books go on, and the typical power creep will be in effect. But we'll see.

 

[Canas]

I can see your points and your perspective of the game. I agree that the game might suffer from being a bit too over-simplified/streamlined. It does feel more "gamey" and less like two big armies crashing together. Maybe that's an aesthetic that some players don't mind?

Yeah a lot of players don't really care about what the game represents. So they're often fine with relativly abstract game-y design.
It's a shame; loads of games with great potential where the soul slowly gets eroded in favour of flashy game-mechanics, or cold balancing choices, that slowly undermine the fantasy of the game.

One of the points with which I so disagree is that Hunters of Huanchi are not amazing. They are one of Seraphon's best units, especially so far in 4.0. It's not just because of their weapon abilities, but because of the role Chameleon Skinks have served for most of AoS. They are our only reliable "teleport" unit, albeit only if you deploy them in hiding. I do wish GW would give back their ability to return to hiding and teleport in later rounds. These little guys can regularly snag unattended objectives and hinder or pressure units. Their 5+ ward save is nice perk that helps them survive. And, their weapons abilities can be VERY useful.

They're good, but they're also a once-per-game gimmick unit. Not just cuz their teleport is once per game, but also because they're so short ranged, and so squishy, that they're probably going to get murdered the next turn. Which is a design I just don't like.

I also think that Raptadon Chargers are better than just "has potential." Units of 5 can punch hard on a charge against standard infantry. A unit of 10 can punch hard even into elite infantry. It's a crazy amount of dice; 31 dice from lances and 30 dice from mounts. But they are fragile with just a 5+ save.

My main complaint is that the synergy with the hunters doesn't feel quite right. And not using the 1 special rule you get on your warscroll seems a bit stupid.

Also; the fact that they're stuck with a 5+ save kinda sucks. Especially with how common rend is in 4th. But that's a broader complaint that isn't limited to raptadons

I'll be honest, I'm actually not the biggest fan of all the reactions in your opponent's phase now. I know that's the number one response you get when asking people what they like about the new edition, but to me it's just extra stuff added in to keep track of that doesn't make up for everything that's being stripped away. I've said before that the base rules of 4e seem pretty good, but that's one part I could really do without. That, and control score.

I think the reactions have potential. The current implementation isn't anything particularly impressive, given the relativly low amount of CP you have and how limited the reactions are as a consequence. But it has opened up potential design space for future adjustments. AoS has a lot of downtime, reactions help alleviate that. Also; it could be used to balance out things like alphastrikes and doubleturns. Of course this does require them to be more interesting than just "overwatch" or "countercharge". I really like the potential with wizards casting in the opponents turn though; now if only we got actually interesting spells.

It definitly does not replace the stuff that's been removed though.

I disagree with comments that the game is better balanced now. You still have some factions with an absurdly high winrate, which I'm sure will get nerfed like crazy over time, and factions that are in the trash as far as competitiveness goes.

Meh, winrate is a poor measure of balance anyway

Anyways I meant that due to the streamlining there's fewer outliers. For example, humanoid melee-capable heroes all seem to have a variant of a 5/4+/3+/1/1 melee weapon. Some get 5/3+/3+/-/1 some get 5/4+/4+/1/2, but it's all set around the same baseline. While it won't solve all problems; it should at least help make matchups feel a bit fairer. Sadly the streamlining didn't stop GW from leaving our carnosaur in its perpetual weak state for a monster....

a very lackluster "throw this unit at the enemy and it will die, just hope it keeps them off the objective long enough" playstyle, given how we have some units that can hit decently hard but nothing survives long.

I don't think we're the only one to suffer from this. A lot of stuff looks like this is the intended playstyle now.

We have zero shooting, which feels really weird, and while we still have good bonuses to casting it kind of feels like our spells are just "meh" when it comes to their usefulness.

Magic is a massive victim of the streamlining. Which ends up being awkward when you play a wizard heavy army with the wrong lore. Especially since it looks like they didn't want to repeat spells across lores; resulting in very uneven lores. Some can spam damage, some can spam healing, some can spam a niche buff. Worst part is that technically you have access to more spells, so it really shouldn't feel this bad in theory.

Of course, other armies are probably feeling the same way given how much GW has stripped everything down with 4e, so I guess all our hopes lie with what they do with battletomes whenever those come out.

Yeah, I'm really curious if the battletomes are going to fix any of the early problems; like the current lack of spells/artifacts/traits/etc.

One of my friends heard in the reveal video that the battletomes are not that different from what we have. Which begs the question "Why bother?" I imagine that will change the books go on, and the typical power creep will be in effect. But we'll see.

To sell books and make money

In all seriousness; cuz players like having books. Especially new players cannot be expected to go and download a pdf to get all the rules.
Though it would be terribly depressing if they don't flesh out things like the lores and such to be more than the barebones variants we have now.