No - attacking supply lines and isolated groups of soldiers whilst avoiding pitched battles is an old strategy.

In terms of a distinction of "a disruptive role instead of traditional battles", I suppose one would compare chevauchée (defined as an offensive tactic used to force a favourable pitched battle, rather than an expensive siege) and guerrilla warfare (as a defensive tactic used to force an expensive siege, rather than a unfavourable pitched battle).

A key difference is how the state-like bureaucracies that are mobilizing all these belligerents extract funds or otherwise resist attrition from the territory and its civilians - who benefits from damaging infrastructure and killing civilians more, the attacker or the defender?

A century before the American revolutionary war, the Cromwellian army crushed Irish militias by destroying crops, forcibly evicting civilians from guerrilla areas, etc. A century after the American revolutionary war, the British army crushed Boer militias by destroying crops, forcibly evicting civilians from guerrilla areas, etc.

Guerrilla warfare is not a trump card. Minutemen were effective in an environment where Britain had to contend also with organized armies and the French and Spanish. Conversely, immediately after the war, the new American state itself successfully resorted to starvation and eviction to deal with native American militias.