An Honest Review of Age of Sigmar 4 So Far- What Happened to the Game I Love?

[@twindad4167]

This is the best addition of AOS I have played. The rules simplification result in some nuanced wonky scenarios, but overall it’s great. Lots of good tactical choices and decently balanced.

[@dildoswaggins2907]

Less rules BS yes. Balanced, not at the moment, at least not competitively

[@kylejohnson3579]

I second this. 4.0 literally brought me back to the game because for once in my filthy casual life I actually feel like I understand what, why, and when stuff is happening.

[@davidcanty7903]

I am looking forward to incarnations / endless spells getting kicked in the jimmies.

[@davidkey4272]

When I was a young man, I had the same complaints. The logical conclusion is that they do it this way because it’s revenue accretive and it is not a “mistake.” I think it’s also an index edition and that means it needs a bit more time.

[@rotm4447]

It needs more time for what, to bring down the point cost on stuff that was bad last edition that's still bad now, that they inexplicably increased the cost on back to where it was at the start of 3e. Its already started with their slow roll, keep going, -10 decreases on stuff that's obviously trash like slaangors. More time isn't going to fix the regiment system because all they can do to fix it basically amounts to removing it. Its not going to fix the feeling of the lack of spells and enhancements, or sparse allegiance abilities, the lack of keyword abilities and flavor, the lack of feeling like there's any kind of customization options or rpg elements flavor.

[@40KWill]

The true problem with an index edition is some poor players will have an index for 2.5 years

[@williamcruickshanks7352]

I think I largely agree with a lot of the points here but not a lot of the sentiments. But I think you're definitely right that the three commands highlighted are by far the most powerful things you can do with your CP. Also Rally is very strong. One bit that did stick out to me was the notes on LRL? Like the faction is clearly too good but I think the stuff you highlighted just seems completely irrelevant to why they're good? "Until we get to lumineth" >every nonhero aelf unit except stoneguard is 3s 4s on melee and ranged. Most heroes are 3s 4s in melee. The reason stoneguard are 3s 3s is probably to do with their hammer that's the same size as them, similar for the other big magical weapons. The stuff that isn't 3s 4s is non aelf models. Complaining about crits on LRL just feels a bit sour grapes when it's been Vanari's identity for forever, and it was fine when KBs had it (and it's also been their faction identity for as long as they've existed). Notably, the only units with crits in LRL are vanari and only one Vanari unit is that good, pretty sure windchargers and riverblades are out there rolling 3s and 4s like the rest of em, for example. Genuinely feels kind of like aimless complaining about what undercosted units have rather than what is actually making them too good. Like complaining about skullreapers or mannfred's statlines in 3rd or something. It's just not the part that's a problem, and generally LRL are 3s and 4s same as the other elf factions. It's nice to be able to just be like 3s and 4s for pretty much everything. It's the same for the OBR thing. It's kind of just a bit ??? Like yes -1 to hit is more common than -1 to wound, so that is absolutely a factor when evaluating these units but by and large I don't think it's really what matters when it comes to the balance between these factions and if we lived in a world where the best armies were all destruction I think people would give the same level of credence to complaints about destruction statlines. At the end of the day there's a points value where these models are balanced and I'm of the opinion that Gitz are good, Ogors are fine but their internal balance is a disaster and Orruks are just too expensive, and Ironjawz have more issues than that, too. Idk if they were broken in playtesting or w/e but those models are just crazy pricy. tl;dr right answer wrong working but I still like the video and i hope your other channel goes well xo

[@plasticcraic8936]

Excellent video Stuart. I agree with huge swathes of it, disagree with some parts but the discussion and analysis is excellent throughout. Bravo 👏

[@komoroff69]

Love the vid. As an OBR player, I feel strange when Dawnriders are compared to Deathriders. Better save, 4 inches of movement and crit mortals, better charge ability (not sure on the math here), and most importantly, not having to be within 12" of a hero to benefit from additional stuff and an arbitrarily better spell lore seems like comparing a Premiere league striker top tier strieker to a Polish Ekstraklasa one. There are the best in their teams, but one is just better and has access to better environment. Lumineth are, and have always been broken sideways. Also, for the 4 horsemen, i would switch nh with Seraphon.

[@traiantulbure3819]

I was really hyped for 4.0 during the lead up, but at this point there is more I dislike than like about the edition and this video covers much of why. Additionally factions feel gutted. Warscrolls, battle formations, spell lores and enhancements generally feel oversimplified, generic or just plain bad, paired with the fact that the choices are roughly halved, it leaves me wondering what’s left to like?

[@TheEase1]

Yes! 3rd was better and more options..

[@MankeyPaw]

I think manifestation should fill a regiment and therefore cost a drop. I don't like feeling like I have to include them in a list because they are "free". I also miss having like 6 spells, 6 command traits, 6 artifacts. Like sure 3 out of the 6 were always bad, but at least you have variety. Now 2/3 are bad and there's no variety. Give me back my cool customization. Also here's an idea, let people pick their enhancements at the start of the game. Maybe this would increase game time by a bit, but honestly the "side board" aspect of it would be worth it imo. Another side note, it's sad to see a lot of units or army rules still require a roll in order to happen, like either make every single rule in the game like that or none of them, just feels like garbage when you play into an army that has abilities that are way more powerful and don't require a roll, and then you need a roll for your ability that is not as powerful and you just fail the roll the whole game.

[@rodrek44]

someone rolled a 1 on strike and fade lol. Welcome

[@MankeyPaw]

@@rodrek44 lol good guess but not a syl player. Definitely a good example though.

[@kellyhoesing2573]

Releasing this video summoned the rules/points update. Gobbapalooza untouched tho

[@at3969]

I agree with a lot of your points, I think many issues with the game come down to the fact that the scoring system is still centred around achieving battle tactics whom are achieved with more difficult for some armies than others, let’s not even mention Grand alliance BTs 😂. BTs also makes the nb of drop matters more than it should and force a habit of list tweaking than are not necessary doable or goes against the thematic of some factions ihmo (IJ and FS don’t have units to spare for take the flanks for example, having to play furies in S2D feels weird…)

[@maxbarton613]

This was cathartic to watch. Still very relevant even post Battlescroll.

[@Marhathor]

Unit and racial roles be like: "I love that they're doing this, I just wish they didn't do it." Like, it's not inherently unfair when your army, in large part, suffers more from -1 to hit (when it makes perfect sense thematically) and goes against an entire army hitting on 2s, auto-wounding on 5s with 5+ to wound. If your attacks all deal twice the damage and come at a lower points cost, you can still go 5-0 against them and proceed to be drastically nerfed when the balance patch hits. Elves hitting on 3s and wounding on 4s serves two purposes: 1. Easy to remember. 2. Makes sense thematically. It has no business being used as an argument against critical hits, when, again, it makes a lot of thematic sense for elves to be crit-focused. I'll take my army of Stabbas and enjoy rolling 80 terrible attacks to your 10 good ones, meanwhile benefitting from everything else that makes the army special and/or counter yours. I really don't get why "This army's attacks are less consistent than this army's attacks." is an inherently dumb game design flaw attributed to the rules of thumb for hits and wounds. Pick the swingy army if you like swingy armies and the consistent ones if you want consistency, but don't say no one should have a swingy army ever, just because you don't like them. And then the unit roles argument. You say the roles are too broad, complaining about a guy on foot with bodyguards being classified as a guy on foot with bodyguards, and then say anti-monster is too specific and feelbad when it matters. It's more productive to see the roles as general directions for where your units should go and, for your opponents' abilities, where your units shouldn't go. You can opt into building around these abilities and controlling the battlefield, or just take your units for what they are. Rest assured, they're pointed correctly. I'll agree it feels bad when your game becomes too matchup-dependent, though. "Nice, my anti-monster army gets to fight SoB." 'Guess I'll die.'

[@amirhayek821]

This has to be one of the best 4th edition video I have seen. I agree with most of the points, even as a flighty causal.

[@JHTheHurricane]

Great Video! Learning from the mistakes is so so so real. Like why are the same armies repeating the same exact toxic play patterns after years of us knowing they suck. At least there is no mortal shooting in the game. Progress lol.

[@davidcanty7903]

Lumineth shooting is close enough. :)

[@JHTheHurricane]

@@davidcanty7903 lol kinda yeah. I got my head caved in by 15 windchargers and 2 foxes this past weekend. A grand time lol

[@davidcanty7903]

@@JHTheHurricane At Nova one guy had 20 of those Windchargers and 2 foxes. Was insane.

[@assistantref5084]

Countercharge was a mistake. It should instead have been something more like heroic intervention in 40k. It should only cost 1CP, but it should only be usable against a unit that charged this turn, and it should only give you a d3+3" charge, which cannot be modified. So it becomes what it should have been initially - something to stop someone from charging and staying just outside of 3" of a unit they don't want to engage. And something you can definitely play around if you really focus on it, because you know if you stay outside 6.5", there's no way they can possibly get in. You could also just make it a flat 4" or 5" instead if you want there to be no RNG involved at all. Meanwhile, covering fire should have been the 2CP one.

[@DocPhantoms]

this feels like the most gamey edition of AOS. Like, it is the most mechanically driven edition with some lipservce to the ludonarrative but ultimately kills the spirit of the game in my experience. The double-down on faction terrain, manifestations being autotake, the continued use of battle tactics as a thing, and the stripping down of factions and subfactions has made it just feel like a longer game of MTG without the positives of MTG.

[@raymondlane]

Hooray Nurgle

[@rotm4447]

I'm really coming around to 4"-5" infantry move just being completely nonsensical. Its like its just a rollover from the transition from whfb that doesn't suit the game at all. You just can't have no hard listbuilding requirements on including infantry and have them compete with cavalry that cost almost the same, has the almost the same profiles, and moves 3x as fast. In other systems like Conquest you have infantry only moving 2" slower and its still a big downside.

[@gaijin_lfc]

I love a good unhinged rant. 44:00 was 100% spot on.

[@piotrjeske4599]

I worry about what will be done to my Lords. Yes they are too good. But l hope, as a "no beastmen in my elf army" player , that our dawn riders will still be good after their nerf.

[@at3969]

Megaboss : 230 pts , Hukaran spirit of the wind : 240pts. Yes GW think this is fine… then they want you to believe that they play test their games 😂

[@leedale6988]

Great vid! What are your thoughts about the current state of the double turn and its relation to list building / drops and also the underdog mechanic?

[@Vortid]

Some good takes. It's a bit sad, there's a lot that is almost good or could have easily been good. I would add to the list: Counter casting endless spells is also too strong. Maybe endless spells with move should not prevent setups of enemy units, it makes them much more of an actual unit that is also free. Faction terrain is weird. I like that you can interract with it. But it should not be a huge liability to have faction terrain, enabling all sorts of cheeky charges. Endless spells without move are a bit like that as well, it plays weird thst you move up next to something and then still charge it but just to get more movement and go into the next thing. Why not just say you can fight it if you are within 3, but can't charge it. Endless spells and faction terrain overall feel very gimmicky and game-y with how they work for charging, as 'units kind of', that can be fun but does it fit this game well? Slow units don't have much of a role. Maybe cavalry should not be reinforceable. Maybe infantry should have some special things it can do, don't know what, but it sure needs to able to do something other than being slow. A positive is reduced threat range on ranged attacks. I also think overall the guarded hero to protect foot heroes is pretty good and though it was implemented late 3rd, I think it is a '4th concept'.

[@rmulshine]

All OBR should be war machine technically

[@jimskaven5963]

I could go on for pages on how they've left Skaven with nothing but pretty models (VERY pretty, mind you). We're effectively missing the better part of three of our clans, and the battletome changed nothing (some annoying nerfs, one, maybe two decent rule changes. Whoever wrote the rules doesn't understand the army at all. A lot of Skaven units have lost their identity. This may happen to you. I fear that this is probably setting the stage for the future of the edition and other factions.

[@Ozzymandios]

I like the Idea of this video... Just not the Implementation of it😂

[@carlfromchicago6908]

A great video per usual. I am kind of digesting everything it is a lot. Countercharge is powerful but drains your opponents CP and is often more of a bluff but I get it. Can’t understand how NH made it through my SBGL army gets stomped. I have trouble with some totally unbalanced books like S2D. Everyone plays the same list. Maybe that is just a points issue. Monsters without heroes also terrible in this edition I rarely see them anywhere. I know in SBGL they are absent. The game seems slower. Agree that breaking phases into reactions is better but somehow slower. I need to work on myself but I rarely even get to turn 3 and we are out of time. List building is weird too. Don’t bother with little heroes no one can take them unless they don’t care about deciding who goes first and risking the double turn which is super powerful now.

[@Hedonite]

Sbgl needs the little heros man. (I also play soulblight) i sacrifice drops in exchange for more spell casting ability and just. Can't afford to lose our heros obviously

[@Chop5964]

No mention of coherency? Or are we all just ignoring it

[@cristhianmlr]

Coherently ignoring coherency

[@assistantref5084]

Everyone ignores it. Not the .5" part (though plenty of people ignore that too), but the rules for picking casualties. They result in ridiculous, game-changing gotchas if you really enforce them. I've yet to play a game against someone who tries to.

[@thomassmart4227]

Coherency seems fine to me. I’ve only blown up my own units a couple of times.

[@DaigotsuSoetsu]

I feel like the "racial" weapon profiles are just for the groups of 10-20 infantry. All the elite units bypass that system. They also didn't want to remove faction special abilities like Venom-Encrusted Weapons, Sunmetal Weapons, OBR 2-hits, etc. I think a huge issue with GW has always been too many factions to balance. Too many different devs working on different battletomes. If you told me there were 4 devs and showed me just 1 book they each designed, I bet with 90% accuracy I could pick the other 5 books each dev designed.

[@roguedm6523]

I'm not a game designer. I just play a lot of AoS and Manifestations are just ugly and make the game slow and removes the tension from the game. "Oh noes~ My manifestation is getting attacked"

[@alanwesley598]

I think you're looking for a granularity that suits higher end of competitive players. Don't you think the goal of this edition was to make an easy entry point for new players?

[@chrish1645]

I'd argue that Spearhead is the entry point, or at least it is positioned as such.

[@alanwesley598]

@@chrish1645 I bet you would.

[@orkimedes]

Wait, Mournfang are CATS? FUCK

[@iamnintendofan]

Dude I love 4th edition, can't get enough of it

[@kalhas80]

In 40k the terrain rules in competitive are not used but still pointless in aos. Also the cover rule looks like being picked from 40k

[@AntTornado-p2s]

great vid. 4th is an objectively dogshit experience from any sort of even semi-competitive point of view, shit's embarrassing

[@jamesalexander222]

To be fair.. elves should be 2d and 4s.. so all comes out in the wash.. also lots more plus one to hit buffs than wounds..

[@olafolafsson2755]

Love the video and couldn't agree more. The game is just Hammer units smash at each other, no strategy. The brainy action is then to have 1-2 take the flank units in your list. It's very smooth brained just like Stuart said in the video. Frustrating to play this game. Watch any battlereport on KZbin and you can see how simple and bad the game actually is. I don't understand why many people overrate this edition so much. Especially in my local community noone digs deeper, they just say, they like the new commands or abilities and paraphrase what GW advertised when the edition came out. I also hope that the game gets better because I used to like it. Now I just like the idea of it but not the reality.

[@michabarycki2781]

Compare battle traits of orcs to Nighthaunt....

[@Boljarin]

The racial stuf irritates me to no end. It would have been a perfect way to speed up the game. Elfs wounds on 4's, orcs hit on 4's. The only reason I can think off is that they let every index maker just work on their own without any oversight. And the whole racial stuff was probably just a guideline for them to adhere to, not an actual design choice. Which means the destruction writers played fair when the elf people just masturbated their way to come up with an index and calling it a day. It feels there is truly no general senior designer at GW, or he has no spine and just caves if an writer pushes something through. Or GW really fucking hates Destruction. Either way they FAILED at making the game fun for Destruction people.

[@mrigank3855]

they failed because the racial profiles is a good idea, but they didnt realize they gave damn near every aelf faction easy access to -1 to hit. GW simping for elves? what else is new

[@lordy6666]

AoS is garbage, go 40k Stewy.

[@goatman9998]

40k sucks too, go to Old world Stewy

[@olafolafsson2755]

The level of depth in 40K compared to AoS 4 is huge