Prediction - Battletome Changes

[Ragequit]

With the rumours of the new Stormcast, anyone else feel there will be a new Battletome v3 for them?

With Daughters and Idoneth getting sub Faction bonuses akin to 40k Chapter Tactics, I have a feeling they will also give the Stormcast “Chamber Tactics”; so no more points to spend on Chamber Battalions.

If that is the case, Nurgle got the short straw with the new generation of Battletomes

[Tittliewinks22]

1 hour ago, Ragequit said:

With the rumours of the new Stormcast, anyone else feel there will be a new Battletome v3 for them?

With Daughters and Idoneth getting sub Faction bonuses akin to 40k Chapter Tactics, I have a feeling they will also give the Stormcast “Chamber Tactics”; so no more points to spend on Chamber Battalions.

If that is the case, Nurgle got the short straw with the new generation of Battletomes

Kharadron was the first time to get the various faction rules buff that weren't attached to a batallion.

I don't think nurgle got the short straw, as I don't think every army requires subfactions to be effective.  Outside of narrative useage it all doesn't really matter because most competitive grinders will use the top one or two factions for their rules exclusively.

 

[Thebiggesthat]

It would make sense. But in this current design and development team, I'm not sure sense is really the soundest voice at the moment unfortunately! They will need to do something though, it's all very confusing for a new player. I'm still holding out hope that there are some sensible changes in GHB that tie everything together, as it seems that every battletome is being designed in isolation. 

[Cookiez]

22 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

It would make sense. But in this current design and development team, I'm not sure sense is really the soundest voice at the moment unfortunately! They will need to do something though, it's all very confusing for a new player. I'm still holding out hope that there are some sensible changes in GHB that tie everything together, as it seems that every battletome is being designed in isolation. 

I, on the other hand, think that it's no coincidence that Games Workshop has nearly a monopoly in the wargaming business. The GHB 18 is already written I presume and DoK or ID are clearly designed to match the new changes  - only a handful of barely competitive batallions in matched play for example, reducing the 1, 2 or 3 drops armies, and many more we can't predict.

SCE v3 can be a thing obviously and going for chapter tactics is ok, I guess. It would add more depth to the faction.

[Thebiggesthat]

1 hour ago, Cookiez said:

I, on the other hand, think that it's no coincidence that Games Workshop has nearly a monopoly in the wargaming business. The GHB 18 is already written I presume and DoK or ID are clearly designed to match the new changes  - only a handful of barely competitive batallions in matched play for example, reducing the 1, 2 or 3 drops armies, and many more we can't predict.

SCE v3 can be a thing obviously and going for chapter tactics is ok, I guess. It would add more depth to the faction.

I'm not sure what you meant by the monopoly comment, can you clarify?

I'm not criticising the battalions at all really. My criticism is with the general creep in complexity and rules designed in isolation at the expense of being consistent. Take Stormcast as the example. You  have 4 or 5 intra-faction abilities that offer bonuses for essentially painting your models a certain way. Why make those free for factions, when they aren't for older books.  Why make a point of saying that armies dropping for free 9 inches away is not good for the game, then giving other armies a chance to do it for free. Why make an army complicated rules-wise in a battletome, as new players just starting have no visibility of how something plays?

 

It's all 'ooh these rules are cool, and the rules fit perfectly #pleasantforplastic' from the voices out there, but Jonny Newplayer picks up his favourite army and boom, the first game he is against an army with some army-wide special rules, special rules on top of those, some special scenery, and some special rules for painting things. Oh, and multiple abilities that do the same thing but some worded 'wholly within'  and others worded 'within'. 

 

It's design in isolation and playtesting by yesmen. 

[Cookiez]

@Thebiggesthat What I meant is that GW is the biggest wargaming company for a reason. Of course quality of models is one thing, but actually playing the game is as important as painting.

To each it's own, I guess. I like the complexity and rules abundance from which I can choose what fits my game style. An easy game is a boring game for me and yes, I think Age of Sigmar is too easy now, there are no real tactics here, just recreating best schemes for current situations. And I know there are players that also think the same way as I do and of course I know there are those, who doesn't.

And while SCE can deep strike whole army, they lack many other aspects. That's what is called the perfect imbalance, when it works - a state when factions are different, but their weaknesses and strenghts makes the game balalnced.

[mikethefish]

2 hours ago, Cookiez said:

I, on the other hand, think that it's no coincidence that Games Workshop has nearly a monopoly in the wargaming business.

I get that this was just an off-hand comment, but I have to bring this up.  This is a factually untrue statement...in like a huge way

 

Privateer Press has been steadily building itself up as a reasonable wargaming alternative for over a decade.  There are tons of thriving skirmish options around now - Infinity, Malifaux, Batman and a slew of others.  X Wing and Armada are far more popular than Battlefleet Gothic ever was, even in it's heyday.  Star Wars Legions just released, and is shaping up to be a huge hit with gamers.

 

Games Workshop is doing well, certainly, but these days their former monopoly is a thing of the past.  In fact, I credit much of their recent policy changes to be a direct response to other companies wedging out a space in the tabletop gaming crowd.  Personally, I think it's great - we as players are in sort of a golden age of options these days, and I definitely think that rising tides raises all boats.

 

A bit off topic, so my apologies.  It's been my experience that many GW players tend to be a bit insular about the gaming industry in general.

[Thebiggesthat]

GW is the biggest for a number of reasons, quality of rules is not one. They are getting better however. I'm aware you seem to be shaping this as that I'm somehow an anti-GW hobbyist. I'll shut that down, I have 4k of SCE, and the same amount each of Sylvaneth and Moonclan. Plus 5k points of Blood Angels, the same at least of Orks. I'm a big fan. 

 

As Mike has pointed out, what you see as dominance is not what others see. My local group plays more Bolt Action, Legion, X wing and 40k than AoS. it's a diverse environment out there and there's a world of choice. I however, would like to see more AoS as that's what I enjoy hobby-wise. However, this complexity is putting new people off, at least where I am. I want to have a casual game of something, if I want complexity I'll go play Infinity. 

 

[Twitch of Izalith]

19 minutes ago, Cookiez said:

I like the complexity and rules abundance from which I can choose what fits my game style. An easy game is a boring game for me and yes, I think Age of Sigmar is too easy now, there are no real tactics here, just recreating best schemes for current situations.

Complicated rule sets DO NOT make complex games. If you think  AoS has a simple rule set you would be right, but if you think its a simple game I think you should try and find some better players to compete with. 

I find that because the rules are so simple you need to be far more inventive with your tactics, movement and synergies to win than games with more crunchy rules. The more a system leans towards "simulation" - with endless tables and modifiers - the more you are just enacting a set of rules instead of playing a game.

Additionally the missions for AoS are very good - and much more dependent on good play than list choice. The difficulty comes from the challenges the game presents not from the complexity of the rules mechanics.

e.g If you think AoS is easy does than mean you can win a major victory in Knife to the Heart every time you play it? surely if the game was easy you would be able to?

EDIT: If the answer to that question is "Yes" then you definitely need more challenging opponents!!  

[RuneBrush]

Steering this back onto the original topic (we're getting into potentially dodgy ground).  I can see the most of the battletomes released prior to the Generals Handbook 2017 getting some love or a version 2/3 at some point.  I feel that the last four battletomes GW have really found their stride, each army is pretty unique, has some really engaging background and offer lots of variety for creating both thematic and competitive army lists (in many cases thematic and competitive).  I think the battalions in these 'tomes have also been much better, with being lower pointed and no longer an army wide affair.

What this has done though is to highlight some of the issues with the older battletomes - even ones that are barely a year old.  I'm pretty sure GW are aware of this though, so we may well see a combination of new battletomes, Errata and changes in the next Generals Handbook.

For Stormcast, I can see a push to try and differ the various chambers a little more than we currently have, this could be a new Stormcast battletome with allegiance abilities similar to how Legions work in Legions of Nagash, alternatively it could be a battletome for each chamber.

[Thebiggesthat]

9 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Steering this back onto the original topic (we're getting into potentially dodgy ground).  I can see the most of the battletomes released prior to the Generals Handbook 2017 getting some love or a version 2/3 at some point.  I feel that the last four battletomes GW have really found their stride, each army is pretty unique, has some really engaging background and offer lots of variety for creating both thematic and competitive army lists (in many cases thematic and competitive).  I think the battalions in these 'tomes have also been much better, with being lower pointed and no longer an army wide affair.

What this has done though is to highlight some of the issues with the older battletomes - even ones that are barely a year old.  I'm pretty sure GW are aware of this though, so we may well see a combination of new battletomes, Errata and changes in the next Generals Handbook.

For Stormcast, I can see a push to try and differ the various chambers a little more than we currently have, this could be a new Stormcast battletome with allegiance abilities similar to how Legions work in Legions of Nagash, alternatively it could be a battletome for each chamber.

I haven't said anything about the background etc, I buy all the battletomes for this exact reason, and the Deepkin book is utterly fantastic for that, love the way the story is going. 

 

the stormcast have that variety already, you just have to pay a tonne of points and stick to restrictive builds to use them, my exact point that the books are being written in isolation are sacrificing clarity for cool.

 

We should be able to write critically on here.

[Gaz Taylor]

16 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

We should be able to write critically on here.

To a degree. Remember there's constructive criticism and there's being critical for the sake of it and generally upsetting people who don't want to read anything like that in a thread (especially when said thread isn't about that). TGA isn't the place for that sort of thing  

Back on topic.....

9 hours ago, Ragequit said:

With the rumours of the new Stormcast, anyone else feel there will be a new Battletome v3 for them?

With Daughters and Idoneth getting sub Faction bonuses akin to 40k Chapter Tactics, I have a feeling they will also give the Stormcast “Chamber Tactics”; so no more points to spend on Chamber Battalions.

If that is the case, Nurgle got the short straw with the new generation of Battletomes

I think there is a possibility of a new Stormcast Battletome but I suspect we will see something new rather than just redoing the same book. 

[sal4m4nd3r]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

Steering this back onto the original topic (we're getting into potentially dodgy ground).  I can see the most of the battletomes released prior to the Generals Handbook 2017 getting some love or a version 2/3 at some point.  I feel that the last four battletomes GW have really found their stride, each army is pretty unique, has some really engaging background and offer lots of variety for creating both thematic and competitive army lists (in many cases thematic and competitive).  I think the battalions in these 'tomes have also been much better, with being lower pointed and no longer an army wide affair.

What this has done though is to highlight some of the issues with the older battletomes - even ones that are barely a year old.  I'm pretty sure GW are aware of this though, so we may well see a combination of new battletomes, Errata and changes in the next Generals Handbook.

For Stormcast, I can see a push to try and differ the various chambers a little more than we currently have, this could be a new Stormcast battletome with allegiance abilities similar to how Legions work in Legions of Nagash, alternatively it could be a battletome for each chamber.

There is objectively MAYBE one battalion in the entire nurgle book that is pointed appropriately with the majority being above 200 points and a couple that are just not viable in a standard game of age of sigmar. 

[Gaz Taylor]

47 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

There is objectively MAYBE one battalion in the entire nurgle book that is pointed appropriately with the majority being above 200 points and a couple that are just not viable in a standard game of age of sigmar. 

If you have any issues with any of the points, rules or anything like that, post your thoughts on https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/

The folks on there do check every comment and stuff does get fed back to the people in the Studio. If it seems that this is something that needs tweaking, they will tweak it in the Generals Handbook  

[rokapoke]

1 hour ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

There is objectively MAYBE one battalion in the entire nurgle book that is pointed appropriately with the majority being above 200 points and a couple that are just not viable in a standard game of age of sigmar. 

Of course, a "standard" game of AoS could be defined as one using the 4-page rules as opposed to the Matched Play rules... GW is busily making rules for all three types of play. Not everything will resonate with Matched Play (particularly competitive tournament play).

[sal4m4nd3r]

5 hours ago, rokapoke said:

Of course, a "standard" game of AoS could be defined as one using the 4-page rules as opposed to the Matched Play rules... GW is busily making rules for all three types of play. Not everything will resonate with Matched Play (particularly competitive tournament play).

Maybe I should clarify. By standard I mean MOST.  Because GW tried and FAILED tailoring the game to narrative players. Only when they started catering to the MAJORITY of players and introduced points did the game actually take hold in the community.  By standard, I was referring to 1000-2500 pointed games. 

 

5 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

If you have any issues with any of the points, rules or anything like that, post your thoughts on https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/

The folks on there do check every comment and stuff does get fed back to the people in the Studio. If it seems that this is something that needs tweaking, they will tweak it in the Generals Handbook  

I have no doubt because people stopped using battalions for the most part. I feel it was a lazy and short sighted approach to fixing the issue with warscroll battalions. They seemingly blanket added 100 points to every battalion without regard. Except for my favorite battalion which was inexplicably reduced by 60 points, even though its a "one drop". I ahve submitted feedback in the past and I will continue to do so. 

[Clan's Cynic]

9 hours ago, mikethefish said:

A bit off topic, so my apologies.  It's been my experience that many GW players tend to be a bit insular about the gaming industry in general.

Which unto itself is a big part of that monopoly actually. Wargames are inherently a social hobby and very expensive. 

Most people begin with GW products. Hell, I'm going to guess something around 95% of wargamers - if we exclude historicals - began with GW products. Most people probably invest hundreds if not thousands into their GW products before even considering, or in some cases knowing, that other wargames are a possibility. When you've got THAT much invested financially it's very difficult for somebody to eye up another product, especially when there's far fewer people playing that game compared to 40k/AoS. In many cases, putting hundreds of pounds into a new wargame is something of a risk, just on the off-chance that game's playerbase locally dries up. This is especially bad in the UK where Games Workshop stores are very common.

It's a bit like McDonalds actually. No matter where you go, you're going to be able to find a McDonalds. Is it the best food for the cost? Hell no, but they're everywhere and you know what you're getting. Your mates all go there for the same reason, so you go along for the ride. You COULD try another place, but you risk wasting your money and your mates are similarly grumbling about it. Hell, you might really get into it and then it shuts down for whatever reason... but not McDonalds.

[AthlorianStoners]

5 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Which unto itself is a big part of that monopoly actually. Wargames are inherently a social hobby and very expensive. 

Most people begin with GW products. Hell, I'm going to guess something around 95% of wargamers - if we exclude historicals - began with GW products. Most people probably invest hundreds if not thousands into their GW products before even considering, or in some cases knowing, that other wargames are a possibility. When you've got THAT much invested financially it's very difficult for somebody to eye up another product, especially when there's far fewer people playing that game compared to 40k/AoS. In many cases, putting hundreds of pounds into a new wargame is something of a risk, just on the off-chance that game's playerbase locally dries up. This is especially bad in the UK where Games Workshop stores are very common.

It's a bit like McDonalds actually. No matter where you go, you're going to be able to find a McDonalds. Is it the best food for the cost? Hell no, but they're everywhere and you know what you're getting. Your mates all go there for the same reason, so you go along for the ride. You COULD try another place, but you risk wasting your money and your mates are similarly grumbling about it. Hell, you might really get into it and then it shuts down for whatever reason... but not McDonalds.

Haha totally get what you’re going for but I think th models from GW are some of the best out there

[Clan's Cynic]

11 hours ago, AthlorianStoners said:

Haha totally get what you’re going for but I think th models from GW are some of the best out there

Oh don't get me wrong. From a model standpoint, Games Workshop I think does largely blow all other wargames out of the water. It's a testament to GW's ability and willingness to invest in that. Alas, they don't put nearly the same amount of R&D into their other departments which is a damn shame considering the enormous potential they have and are squandering. 

[Wired4War]

19 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Which unto itself is a big part of that monopoly actually. Wargames are inherently a social hobby and very expensive. 

Most people begin with GW products. Hell, I'm going to guess something around 95% of wargamers - if we exclude historicals - began with GW products. Most people probably invest hundreds if not thousands into their GW products before even considering, or in some cases knowing, that other wargames are a possibility. When you've got THAT much invested financially it's very difficult for somebody to eye up another product, especially when there's far fewer people playing that game compared to 40k/AoS. In many cases, putting hundreds of pounds into a new wargame is something of a risk, just on the off-chance that game's playerbase locally dries up. This is especially bad in the UK where Games Workshop stores are very common.

It's a bit like McDonalds actually. No matter where you go, you're going to be able to find a McDonalds. Is it the best food for the cost? Hell no, but they're everywhere and you know what you're getting. Your mates all go there for the same reason, so you go along for the ride. You COULD try another place, but you risk wasting your money and your mates are similarly grumbling about it. Hell, you might really get into it and then it shuts down for whatever reason... but not McDonalds.

Very much this. I actually like a number of other games better, but the one I can be always sure to find an opponent for is 40k (and AoS more and more). I've spent hundreds if not thousands on other mini games and many hundreds of hours painting...but they just sit around at home. I'm okay with this though, as 40k (and AoS more and more) have much deeper lore, faction options, and model quality.

[NemoVonUtopia]

I think that one reason nurgle didn't get and sub factions is that there are so many more options. For example daughters of Khain have about 15 units or so. Nurgle has rotbringers, daemons of nurgle, slaves to darkness, Clan pestelins, and tamurkan's horde. 

[Soulsmith]

Ironjawz to have more detailed subfactions with rules that don't require battalions, and just rules tweaks.

[BURF1]

On 4/29/2018 at 9:55 PM, Ragequit said:

With the rumours of the new Stormcast, anyone else feel there will be a new Battletome v3 for them?

With Daughters and Idoneth getting sub Faction bonuses akin to 40k Chapter Tactics, I have a feeling they will also give the Stormcast “Chamber Tactics”; so no more points to spend on Chamber Battalions.

If that is the case, Nurgle got the short straw with the new generation of Battletomes

They need it, it's one of the most lopsided and shoddy battletomes since they started the new battletome format. 

[Thebiggesthat]

Yet still quite competitive. 

[Ragequit]

On 30/04/2018 at 5:42 PM, Thebiggesthat said:

It would make sense. But in this current design and development team, I'm not sure sense is really the soundest voice at the moment unfortunately! They will need to do something though, it's all very confusing for a new player. I'm still holding out hope that there are some sensible changes in GHB that tie everything together, as it seems that every battletome is being designed in isolation. 

I have to admit, I was planning on trying 40k until I noticed all factions were getting Chapter Tactics.. Now AoS seems to be trending the same thing and it has me worried..

 

On 30/04/2018 at 10:27 PM, sal4m4nd3r said:

There is objectively MAYBE one battalion in the entire nurgle book that is pointed appropriately with the majority being above 200 points and a couple that are just not viable in a standard game of age of sigmar. 

I noticed most of the new Battalions seems to be roughly 50 points cheaper rather then 100 points since GHB17 ie between 100-140 points instead of 180-240

Nurgle got jibbed compared to DoK and ID

On 30/04/2018 at 1:17 PM, Tittliewinks22 said:

Kharadron was the first time to get the various faction rules buff that weren't attached to a batallion.

Forgot about them ? although the KO don’t have a faction wide trait on type of their customisable one.

On 04/05/2018 at 1:38 AM, NemoVonUtopia said:

I think that one reason nurgle didn't get and sub factions is that there are so many more options. For example daughters of Khain have about 15 units or so. Nurgle has rotbringers, daemons of nurgle, slaves to darkness, Clan pestelins, and tamurkan's horde. 

True, did not think about that it that way.