Battle March Changes in Arcane Journal: weather, secret objectives, and a harsh hit to infantry
We’ve been looking through the new Battle March rules from the Arcane Journal, and there are a few ideas in there that immediately got us talking. Some of them feel like fun tools we’d genuinely like to try in our campaign games. Others… well, others got a much less enthusiastic reaction.
This isn’t a full review, just our first hobby-table reaction to the bits that stood out most: terrain, weather, Chaos of War, secret objectives, and one pretty painful-looking change to unit strength.
Rivers are now dangerous terrain
One of the first things that jumped out at us was that, under the new Battle March material, rivers count as dangerous terrain.
That’s a small rule on paper, but it has a pretty big effect on how we think about the table. Rivers stop being just scenic obstacles and start feeling like something you actually have to plan around. We like that in principle — terrain should matter — especially in campaign play where the battlefield itself can help tell the story.
Weather for every battle
Another addition is weather being rolled or applied for each battle.
Michał’s first reaction was that he wasn’t sure this was actually an improvement. And honestly, we get it. Random weather sounds fun, but only up to the point where it starts feeling like extra complexity for its own sake.
In our case, we already have weather in our campaign, and our feeling right now is that our campaign weather rules are probably more interesting because they’re tied to the setting and the ongoing story instead of being just another pre-battle procedure.
So this one is a bit of a “maybe.” Nice idea, but not necessarily something we’d adopt as-is.
Special properties for natural terrain are very tempting
The part that got a much warmer response from us was the section on special properties for natural terrain.
This feels like exactly the kind of rule that can make tables more memorable without needing to rewrite the whole game. Forests, rivers, rough ground, and other natural features having a bit more personality is very much our kind of thing.
We’d genuinely like to try this in one of our next games. It seems like the sort of addition that could make battlefield layout matter more, and that usually leads to better stories afterward.
Chaos of War: surprisingly great
Then there’s Chaos of War, which got an unexpectedly strong positive reaction.
At first glance, we were ready to be skeptical. Stas even said he was about to complain that this was unnecessary overcomplication, because the game is already plenty interesting and plenty complex without extra layers.
But then came the immediate turnaround: Chaos of War is great.
That tracks with our first impression too. A few of the ideas in there overlap with mechanics we already use elsewhere, so it’s not completely new territory for us, but there may absolutely be room to borrow some of this. It has that nice “battlefield friction” feeling — the sense that things don’t always unfold in a perfectly controlled, chess-like way.
That’s often where the most memorable moments come from.
Secret objectives feel very Kill Team
Another new piece is secret objectives.
The immediate comparison for us was Kill Team: your opponent doesn’t know which objective you’ve got during the game, and then you reveal it at the end.
We really like the concept. Hidden information changes how people read the battlefield, and it gives players a reason to make moves that aren’t obviously about the main visible objective. That can create bluffing, surprise, and some very funny end-of-game reveals.
It also feels like a mechanic that could work especially well in campaign play, where not every force necessarily arrives with the exact same priorities.
And then… the unit strength limit
Finally, the bit that got the most immediate negative reaction: in the new Battle March rules, you apparently can’t have more than 20 unit strength.
Michał’s summary was simple: lol, what nonsense.
And yes, this one looks rough.
Stas immediately pointed out what that means for infantry blocks with Horde and Warband. A classic 5x4 goblin unit, for example, would need to have lost not a single wound to still claim the full +3 rank bonus in combat resolution.
That’s a really substantial hit to the kind of big infantry formations that are supposed to feel like proper blocks of troops. If that reading is correct, it seems like a pretty major nerf to exactly the sort of units that often rely on numbers and formation depth to do their job.
We’re very curious how this plays on the table, but as a first reaction, this is definitely the change we like the least.
First impressions overall
So where did we land after this first pass through the new Battle March material?
Things we’re interested in trying:
- special natural terrain properties
- Chaos of War
- secret objectives
Things we’re less convinced by:
- universal weather rules for every battle
- the 20 unit strength cap
The overall feeling is that there are some genuinely cool scenario and battlefield ideas here, especially the ones that make games feel less predictable and more narrative. But there are also a few changes that risk tipping from “flavourful” into “fiddly,” and one that looks like a straight-up painful nerf for infantry-heavy formations.
We’ll probably end up stealing the bits we like most and testing them in our own games rather than swallowing the whole package at once. Which, to be honest, is a pretty normal way for us to approach campaign rules anyway.
If we do get some of these on the table soon, especially Chaos of War or the natural terrain rules, we’ll definitely report back.