Rune's Summary of Warhammer Fest (AoS Focused)

[PlasticCraic]

Here's a question for people - how responsive do you think the rules team can be to recent developments?  For example the same day that the reveal was taking place at WHW, there were only 4 Destruction armies at SCGT, which must be some kind of record. 

Will they have had sufficient time to take into account the performance of recently released armies when updating the points for GH17?  For example DOK seem to be doing very well already despite the potential for competitive builds to require a lot of painting.  Would they be realistically able to readjust their points if they did feel it was appropriate?  

On the one hand they did react to Adepticon in their 40K FAQ, but on the other hand this isn't just a pdf to upload to the website, where you can overtype something at a minute's notice - there are a lot moving parts here.  New rules, new magic, new factions, a release schedule with the long lead time into that across all departments, and of course a beautiful new hardback book that must have already been sent to the printers?

[PlasticCraic]

2 minutes ago, novakai said:

Beside the Poster, there also the 4 warlord piece that been going on in the White dwarf that feature DoK, LoN,  Maggotkin, and lastly BCR, all of them except for BCR have gotten an update this year. And I believe Gutbuster like Moonclan and DoK where left out of the recent GHB. I maybe reading too much into it, but it possibly a hint of something for Ogors.

I think the WD article might be more that they wanted to / felt they had to represent all four GAs.  Since nothing in Destruction has had an update this year, whatever they put in would look like the odd one out. 

In fact looking at that, I think they actually used the most recent Battletome for each GA at the time.  It's just that Destruction GA hasn't had any support since Beastclaw came out almost 2 years ago.

[PlasticCraic]

14 minutes ago, novakai said:

Beside the Poster, there also the 4 warlord piece that been going on in the White dwarf that feature DoK, LoN,  Maggotkin, and lastly BCR, all of them except for BCR have gotten an update this year. And I believe Gutbuster like Moonclan and DoK where left out of the recent GHB. I maybe reading too much into it, but it possibly a hint of something for Ogors.

You are right about the second part, they were omitted from GH17.  Only Ironjawz got Allegiance Abilities for Destruction.  I remember being quite excited about that a year ago when they released the contents page, because I thought they would be getting their own books...hopefully their turn is getting closer!

[RuneBrush]

24 minutes ago, PlasticCraic said:

Here's a question for people - how responsive do you think the rules team can be to recent developments?  For example the same day that the reveal was taking place at WHW, there were only 4 Destruction armies at SCGT, which must be some kind of record. 

Will they have had sufficient time to take into account the performance of recently released armies when updating the points for GH17?  For example DOK seem to be doing very well already despite the potential for competitive builds to require a lot of painting.  Would they be realistically able to readjust their points if they did feel it was appropriate?  

Short answer is that I believe the new handbook is likely written and sat at a printers ready to be printed out. 

For a slightly more expanded answer, if the rumours are right, the Generals Handbook gets printed in the UK (along with other paperbacked books) as it provides a quicker turnaround than a China based printer.  The vast majority of UK printers will allow you to change pages in your publication right up to the point of printing (generally at a cost - especially if the plate has been created).  Personally I can't see DoK or Idoneth getting much in the way of points changes, I think we might find that the point/rule changes upcoming may well help to balance everything out at this level.

I feel that Destruction's drop in visibility is three-fold, firstly the changes made in the last handbook, secondly the existing battletomes are early "versions" and finally other Grand Alliances have received shiny new toys and many of the community thrive on building new armies.  I could see a short period of "rapid fire battletomes" like they've done with 40k (which only has 3 more left to do like this) to address a lot of the armies that received battletomes prior to the beginning of this year (including some oft-called for armies).

[PlasticCraic]

6 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Short answer is that I believe the new handbook is likely written and sat at a printers ready to be printed out. 

For a slightly more expanded answer, if the rumours are right, the Generals Handbook gets printed in the UK (along with other paperbacked books) as it provides a quicker turnaround than a China based printer.  The vast majority of UK printers will allow you to change pages in your publication right up to the point of printing (generally at a cost - especially if the plate has been created).  Personally I can't see DoK or Idoneth getting much in the way of points changes, I think we might find that the point/rule changes upcoming may well help to balance everything out at this level.

I feel that Destruction's drop in visibility is three-fold, firstly the changes made in the last handbook, secondly the existing battletomes are early "versions" and finally other Grand Alliances have received shiny new toys and many of the community thrive on building new armies.  I could see a short period of "rapid fire battletomes" like they've done with 40k (which only has 3 more left to do like this) to address a lot of the armies that received battletomes prior to the beginning of this year (including some oft-called for armies).

Thanks for the answer, very informative!

[Killax]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

I feel that Destruction's drop in visibility is three-fold, firstly the changes made in the last handbook, secondly the existing battletomes are early "versions" and finally other Grand Alliances have received shiny new toys and many of the community thrive on building new armies.  I could see a short period of "rapid fire battletomes" like they've done with 40k (which only has 3 more left to do like this) to address a lot of the armies that received battletomes prior to the beginning of this year (including some oft-called for armies).

I think it might even be fairer to say that some of those Battletomes where for AoS edition 0.8. What I mean by this is that it really didn't feel like a finished game to me up until we recieved the Generals Handbook. Not to go offtopic but I feel AoS edition 2.0. gives us what we honestly needed from the first day AoS sat on the shelf. As it was a WFB replacement product but offered less. Sure it was free but a free car doesn't beat a car from the 2000's with a great ammount of revisions and overall glamourous look...

What I personally expect isn't the rapid fire of Battletomes. Honestly I also don't hope they go this way. If there is one thing I feel presents a true danger to 40K it's this type of rushjob. Their codeci nearly didn't contain any new stories, maps, art and in most cases not even had any new model releases.

The way it works for AoS, slow but steady, to me is the way to go to maintain quality. More importantly to create a product that is actually worth buying. I only have the Codex CSM in hardback because I am a CSM fan, skipped on their 8th rulebook, Codex Chaos Daemons and Imperial Armours. These I obtained digitally. The sad thing is, I am very happy that I didn't purchase it all because 8th edition is under such a revision now that most of their content released doesn't work.

Offcourse I am happy with errata. But errata shouldn't be used as the excuse to rush out products that upon release require an errata. Most of the time it's silly. Proofreading can be done by volunteers. Heck all GW would need to do for that is send a small ammount of people the PDF for the book and have 1 week for them to proofread it. The result would be an improved product worthy to get, in the end product quality is what brings in new customers and keeps them around. In the end GW's mini products are currently top notch but their additional game content still feels like it's in it's baby shoes.

[Naflem]

6 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Sorry what I meant was it lasts one turn. 

Under that circumstance, would you suggest reducing the reinforcement point cost (or even eliminating it and using some other method of “paying for it”)?

[Kramer]

6 minutes ago, Naflem said:

Under that circumstance, would you suggest reducing the reinforcement point cost (or even eliminating it and using some other method of “paying for it”)?

I like the new summooning because of a fluffy achievement a lot. The armies that already have it, shine because of it in my opinion. Maggotkin with them corrupting everything they go and getting more points if they control more of the battlefield. Legions of Death with the gravesite markers, even bloodbound with the blood tithe points. Although that seems to be a first test that isn't quite right yet. Love those.