I haven’t played any 4e yet, but I’ve been looking into it a bit more. I can see the rationale behind a lot of the changes.
But I wonder what problem the additional pivots is solving? I’ve always liked the restricted movement in rank and flank games. It makes deployment more consequential, forces you to commit to a battle plan and makes units with more mobility have a real role in the game.
I thought KoW’s approach to it (allowing 1 90 degree pivot at any point in most moves) was really elegant and still maintained that feeling of large blocks of infantry being unwieldy.
So I’m curious as to why they wanted to add the extra pivots to the game, and what problem that solves?
How have you found it in your games?
1 Like
Alessio said the following in the blog in the lead up to the release of 4th:
“We’ve introduced additional pivots on certain movement orders, allowing units to be more agile and responsive.
This increases fluidity and opens up new tactical possibilities, especially when manoeuvring around terrain or setting up charges. It’s a subtle change, but one that makes battlelines feel more dynamic and less predictable.”
Remember that in 3rd a number of units (dwarfs mainly) had ordered march, allowing a pivot on an At the Double - which now everyone get.
Think that good players will get mire benefit from the extra pivot, although it does provide a bit more security when stuff begins to get up the flanks and round the back of your battleline.
1 Like
My dwarfs already had it and my undead still don’t. 
It makes it easier to enact what you want your units to do. Making the game easier to play and grok.
Which is presumably good for keeping new players?
Apparently games that are “fluid and dynamic” are more fun too. 
As with “historical” movies, one must enjoy games like this for what they are. Otherwise you’re just ruining your own fun.
When I want more restricted movement or “realism”, then I play historical. Then come back to KoW when I want to play something more fantastical and/or technical. Or to participate in the community.
2 Likes
I mostly play Dwarfs, so we got our extra pivot a year or so early. 
I can say that for a slow army like Dwarfs, that extra pivot was a massive help in getting my units to where I wanted. So from my perspective, I’d say that the change is a net benefit.
1 Like
When viewed in isolation I get that it seems odd. However, whilst I haven’t played loads of games yet, I think that what Matt and allesio have said that (paraphrasing) “try the game before judging” and also trying to approach it without assuming anything about rules necessarily being the same as 3rd are the key to getting past any initial scepticism.
The extra pivot works (I think) nicely when combined with the more sticky combat in particular, you want the good charge even more than before. It also helps explain why things like the javelin frogs end up so expensive. Fly and shooting allowed you to be very very irritating! Similar but a bit less for fast moving shooters.
Plus, whilst it is easier to position your troops how you want, the same is true for your opponent, meaning that you have to think differently in both offence and defence.
Basically, the whole process of how you position is altered quite a lot. It’s different, and I’m sure some won’t like, but I think it’s actually better.
I’m certainly willing to try it! I just don’t have access to a group to play with at the moment, and I suppose then what you do is post online about whatever you’re thinking about.
I think the “have a go and accept it if you want to be part of the ongoing community” answer is right. I was just curious how people felt it changed the game feel. I always felt previously that every movement decision in KoW was very decisive, I think it will probably still be true but slightly less so and that’s not the end of the world either.
2 Likes
My feeling, and that of my friend who has many more games of fourth under his belt, is that it still feels like kings, just a bit different. Like the restaurant you love bringing out a new menu by the same chef.
1 Like