The Rumour Thread

[Drofnum]

54 minutes ago, tripchimeras said:

I was just editing my original post with my price thoughts and was saying the same thing for morsarr and the levi, eidolon, and allopax.  I do disagree however that the list doesn't have viable rulesets combos other then eel spam.  If they had been willing to take somewhat more aggressive pricings they really do have some interesting things.  The caster eidolon actually has a really strong ruleset at 360-380pts I think it would be quite strong.  Allopex taken as units of 3-4 and not as solo creatures could pack quite the punch (especially if you consider combining them with a king and/or the leadership buffs aplenty in the book to avoid sharks dieing to leadership).  Most importantly I think thralls are far stronger then most give them credit for, but are overshadowed by eels in pt efficiency.  If adequate decreases occurred, with eels being properly nerfed I think there are quite a few competitive, but not OP, builds to be had.  But right now none of those combos are viable due to overpriced everything.

The 10 point increase isnt much but coupled with changes to Thralls and Reavers we may end up being seen more Namarti.  Instead of a 20 point difference between those units you're now looking at 40+(probably at least 50), which can be a decent reason to go in harder on Thralls who are already quite good.

I do agree that there need to be more reductions though.  Allopex, Eidolons and Lotann all need pretty decent cuts unless we see some of the newer comparable units hit with pretty hefty point raises(Verminlords).  I would bet this isnt a comprehensive list though.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Drofnum

[novakai]

10 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Quote: “

Bonesplitterz and Gutbusters

No changes here – your Bonesplitterz and Gutbusters armies are just as deadly as they always were!”

either Gw really, really hates this armies or their battletome update is  nearer then thought 

I be optimistic and say That Bonesplitterz and Gutbuster are getting a tome soon because of no point change. 

Though BCR did get point change so they may stay separate and get a release further down the pipeline (which I think that was GW plan during AoS 2.0 launch)

[tripchimeras]

12 minutes ago, Drofnum said:

The 10 point increase isnt much but coupled with changes to Thralls and Reavers we may end up being seen more Namarti.  Instead of a 20 point difference between those units you're now looking at 40+(probably at least 50), which can be a decent reason to go in harder on Thralls who are already quite good.

I do agree that there need to be more reductions though.  Allopex, Eidolons and Lotann all need pretty decent cuts unless we see some of the newer comparable units hit with pretty hefty point raises(Verminlords).  I would bet this isnt a comprehensive list though.

If the ones advertised are indicative this is looking like 10-20pt cuts/increases are all they are really doing (mostly 10pts).  So realistically thralls are going to likely be 130.  Thats a 40pt difference. Thralls were already pretty decent before, a lot of people think the power build is all cav list, but from what I have seen the tourney lists that are actually top tier almost all run the flip tide list which means they are taking 2-3 thralls already depending on whether they take any reavers (prob 1 max).  Depending on how many points reavers dropped into comparison to thralls, I don't see any reason you need to stack more thralls on top of the 20-30 you are already taking without a reason to go slow/support on rest of your list.  It doesn't seem like any of our support units/big bad units are getting anything near the point reduction they need to be effective.  As such I  don't think that reason to not have Eels fill the role they do diminished at all.  Without a significant reduction in either A. Soulrender cost B. Reavers and thralls BOTH getting a ~20pt reduction and/or C. The 300pt+ units getting super heavy reductions I really don't think the "net" list changes very much even with the now 40pt difference.  But I would love to be wrong.

Edited June 14, 2019 by tripchimeras

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Mega big hat title topic!

I've just created a new thread for discussions relating to the new generals handbook - please divert all of your posts there else we risk completely overloading the rumour thread.

Thanks all!

 

[Kitsumy]

I dont get the irrational hate people has on eels. And the clearly false statement of them being overpower....

 

Facts are facts. Idonets are 5-6 thournamentwise. And that is being forced to play with heavy spam on eels..

 

If those eels are sooo broken as some people thinks with jokes like 40 points increase omg. Why arent idoneths on 1-2 spot????

 

Easy answer. Eels are perfect. And they only got a sligth increase for people cry about them. At least it wast a kneejerk reaction to those cryes and gw had some common sense there.

 

And where are the huge reductions on avatars?? 40-80 minimun or 20-30 on sharks???? Those unit were unplayable. And faaaar worse than thralls. Thralls were overpriced yes. But they were pretty okish and dont deserve a buff before sharks then avatars , turtle and then thralls.

 

 

But i have to admit that some nerfs to non codex armys arent ok. I only hope they have get new army rules on general book to make up for that.

[Drofnum]

People dont like Eels cause they claim its the only way to win tournaments.  I disagree, especially with point changes, but its the easiest list to write, paint and play for Idoneth.  They are also well costed but they honestly didnt need more than a 10-20 point bump to get them in line.

 

Again I really doubt they showed everything in the article, when do they ever have a comprehensive list of changes or reveals in a community article?  People need to wait til the book is out before freaking out about missed changes.

[tripchimeras]

15 minutes ago, Kitsumy said:

I dont get the irrational hate people has on eels. And the clearly false statement of them being overpower....

 

Facts are facts. Idonets are 5-6 thournamentwise. And that is being forced to play with heavy spam on eels..

 

If those eels are sooo broken as some people thinks with jokes like 40 points increase omg. Why arent idoneths on 1-2 spot????

 

Easy answer. Eels are perfect. And they only got a sligth increase for people cry about them. At least it wast a kneejerk reaction to those cryes and gw had some common sense there.

 

And where are the huge reductions on avatars?? 40-80 minimun or 20-30 on sharks???? Those unit were unplayable. And faaaar worse than thralls. Thralls were overpriced yes. But they were pretty okish and dont deserve a buff before sharks then avatars , turtle and then thralls.

 

 

But i have to admit that some nerfs to non codex armys arent ok. I only hope they have get new army rules on general book to make up for that.

Idoneth represent a very low percentage of tourney army representation across the board, but their win rate is very high and they are widely considered right their with LoN and fyreslayers as just below the top tier,behind fec, dok, and skaven.  The tournaments you do see a power build eel list in they are almost always in the top 5-10.  The main problem for them is they tend to be a 4 win army because their are certain builds their power list has no real answers for (fec).  But just last month a flip tide eel spam won a major tournament in Seattle.  Its not just how good eels are in comparison to other armies though, its the internal balance of the book.  They are so much better then anything else in it at the role they play, and with the advent of the power creep of the last 3-4 books, make no mistake the role they play is essential at this point.  Even at 200pts I suspect you would still see a decent number of them in competitive builds, that is how good they are due to the tides and the constant stream of rerolls to mitigate bad luck.  Now I would never advocate such a steep increase in price without equally steep decreases in price for the same units you mention in your post, but I think they have to go hand in hand in order to both balance the book internally and externally.  If you just change 1 or the other, the book either becomes unplayable or too powerful depending.

Edited June 14, 2019 by tripchimeras

[JackStreicher]

30 minutes ago, Drofnum said:

People dont like Eels cause they claim its the only way to win tournaments.  I disagree, especially with point changes, but its the easiest list to write, paint and play for Idoneth.  They are also well costed but they honestly didnt need more than a 10-20 point bump to get them in line.

I had written a very long review of the points change articlebut It was „unable to locate item“ when I posted since s.o. Temporarily renamed the thread to „The big GHB 2019 Discussion „.... well the text is lost.

 

about the idk: eels were fine because most of the rest was abysmally (pun intended) inefficienct - an issue they didn‘t even scratch the surface of with their announcement of point changes.

DoK: Fine. Sniper snakes need to be at 120, they‘re still too bad for 140. the Khinerai changes are borderline unwarranted, they can deploy in reserve while having no real dmg output? Yeah let‘s increase their points 😱🤯 what?

as for non-bt factions: gw: oh, they are bad, rubbish even! Let‘s reduce points by 10! - 🤷🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️

Overall: most inefficient units need a Warscroll rewrite, no point change will make them worth fielding. (And Nö I am not going to spam corsairs, just rewrite that damn Warscroll already, no elf should hit/wound on 5s!!)

Edited June 14, 2019 by JackStreicher

[Drofnum]

19 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I had written a very long review of the points change articlebut It was „unable to locate item“ when I posted since s.o. Temporarily renamed the thread to „The big GHB 2019 Discussion „.... well the text is lost.

I had the same problem!  Dont care enough to rewrite it really either haha.

[Belper]

2 hours ago, HammerOfSigmar said:

Blood stalker do get point decrease....down to 140....

He said 'I hope we see more of them with the points drop'.

I said 'keep hopin cause it ain't happening' because they're still unplayable at 140.

[alghero81]

On the news front I’m actually pretty excited by FW models being officially supported back in a GW publication.

This may mean some more love coming soon from FW or some big monsters finally coming to factions instead of being relegated to nice decorations on the shelves...

[GeneralZero]

When I (re)read the news on the comunity, I'm not reassured for a battletome for my StD. I expected more for this army, not just some little points adjustments (BTW, I lve the unit of 3 chariots, I expect them to remains single after deployment).

Same thoughts for some other armies. I dunno where NighHaunt is going, but reapers have been hard hit (as expected).

I'm afraid that FEC and Skaven will get the same hammer treatment.

Points change won't help much BCR: they need up to date rules and magic (ES) (same for some others like IJ & KO)

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by GeneralZero

[Charleston]

12 hours ago, GeneralZero said:

When I (re)read the news on the comunity, I'm not reassured for a battletome for my StD. I expected more for this army, not just some little points adjustments (BTW, I lve the unit of 3 chariots, I expect them to remains single after deployment).

Same thoughts for some other armies. I dunno where NighHaunt is going, but reapers have been hard hit (as expected).

I'm afraid that FEC and Skaven will get the same hammer treatment.

Points change won't help much BCR: they need up to date rules and magic (ES) (same for some others like IJ & KO)

 

Checking out the statistics on competetive play, Slaves to Darkness are the single worst army in the meta by results so far:
https://thehonestwargamer.com/aos-2-2-final-stats-13th-june-2019/
The only thing lower in the List is Tamurkhans Horde, which simply was never used in a tournament so far.

With the Slaanesh Book the only decent list we had was not only nerfed, no, we simply had a key hero removed (So no double fightning of Slaanesh Marked Knights).

I am honestly in doubt when we may expect StD to hit the floor. My local GW is even taking the Darkoath Warqueen from the shelfs this week, which also doesn´t seem to be a good sign.

Also the Darkoath-Flair teased so far suggest simply a completly different army from what Slaves to Darkness were before. The tribesmen flair has some cool gimmicks but all in all I loves StD for beeing heavy armoured warriors of incredible might. Right now Chaos Warriors are rather a joke. The miniatures may look decent as legacy army, but as soon as any new models hit the table, Warriors just look silly and small due to scale creep.

It´s actually a shame that an army I started which so much ambition and which made so much fun to build and paint is now the main reason for frustration in the hobby for me. I am also more and more afraif of what GW will to to the MArk of Chaos-System. I woulnd´t be suprised with GW cutting the marks at some point.

Yeah, StD really need some love.

 

Btw.: What was actually the last release we had? Wasn´t it Looncurse? So we are actually over a month with the pipeline beeing stucked by trade war? I am curious in how many releases we may expect, once that GW has a workaround for that. I mean, I wouldn´t wonder if GW original timeline had us already teased the next 1-2 Battletomes already at Warhammer Fest. Maybe thats a reason why Gutbusters/Bonesplitters aren´t about to expect point drops

[GeneralZero]

@Charleston I'm in the same boat. I started StD just because I like the miniatures and the concept of an army that could synergize with each chaos taste/god. In reality, I only have the miniatures. No synergies.

StD have a great potential especially with everchosen addition. The miniatures don't look bad: we have great ones like the warshrine, varanguard (wich are super expensive $£€ btw) archaon and I like the knights and the chariot. The chaos warriors are a bit dated but that gives them a look on the table.

Now on the battlefield, all in all, you said it all: we are last. Bottom last. And this GHB doesn't give anything in the right direction, nore, most important, an insight or a hope for a battletome. This is super sad.

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by Gaz Taylor
Removed offensive comment

[Overread]

Right now I think you can pretty much  guarantee a Battletome for Slaves to Darkness (or a battletome that covers all the units even if it renames the faction name) within the next 12 months. In fact you could go further and expect to see all of AoS with a Battletome new and updated for 2.0 within that time frame*

There is a very high chance of it appearing within the next 6 months. 

 

These estimations assume normal trade flow to the UK, if that really messes things up beyond just Sylvanath then GW might have to adjust plans. 

*with a possible exception of some Aelf blocks depending on what GW chooses to do with them. Ergo any that are tied to a new-army release might go longer if GW hasn't brought out the new army yet.

[The World Tree]

My suspicion is that StD will be merged with Everchosen/Darkoath. They did not release that battleforce for fun and we have all of these Warcry warbands coming.

[Overread]

10 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

My suspicion is that StD will be merged with Everchosen/Darkoath. They did not release that battleforce for fun and we have all of these Warcry warbands coming.

I would agree with that, esp since they've done that on the GW store. Plus Everchosen only has 2 unique models to its name. Far more sense to combine them with Slaves and then have it rather like Gloomspite and Skaven - still being able to take a pure Everchosen army, but also form a combined army without allies point limits and the like. They might even add a few more models to the "pure" everchosen army option too. 

I'd also expect to see the Darkoath within that book as well, far more sense than creating a second mortal chaos followers army in its own book.

 

It would make for a really awesome single mortal followers of Chaos book. Couple it to warcry and a few slaves/everchosen releases and its a great all in one package. Even more so if the Warcry models are added as regular troops not a named warband and thus are put in properly (as opposed to shadspire warbands which are present but are not super powerful on their own and thus are more optional - which is fitting considering the yare more character groups than unit groups). 

[Kurrilino]

5 hours ago, Charleston said:

I am honestly in doubt when we may expect StD to hit the floor. My local GW is even taking the Darkoath Warqueen from the shelfs this week, which also doesn´t seem to be a good sign.

Also the Darkoath-Flair teased so far suggest simply a completly different army from what Slaves to Darkness were before. The tribesmen flair has some cool gimmicks but all in all I loves StD for beeing heavy armoured warriors of incredible might. Right now Chaos Warriors are rather a joke. The miniatures may look decent as legacy army, but as soon as any new models hit the table, Warriors just look silly and small due to scale creep.

It´s actually a shame that an army I started which so much ambition and which made so much fun to build and paint is now the main reason for frustration in the hobby for me. I am also more and more afraif of what GW will to to the MArk of Chaos-System. I woulnd´t be suprised with GW cutting the marks at some point.

 

I feel your pain.

I also started Warriors of Chaos many many years ago because of mighty heavily armored mercyless fighters.

In 8th edition the warriors were the by far the strongest battle line units. They were feared when marked right.

When AOS came around they removed the marks or better said the powers of the marks. Now STD are just a joke and i get more and more frustrated to the point where i think about selling my whole chaos army of all marks. The point decrease of the chariots is another sign that the devs have absolutely no idea plan of what to do with STD in the future. So they give the chariots a tiny tiny point decrease when taken in groups of 3. Problem is, chariots get weaker when taken in groups.  Of course the point drop is for the chariots nobody plays instead of the gorebeast chariots, the only unit that could be remotely considered as not utter garbage.

And i am in the same boat, i guess they will completely remove the marks and this will be the final nail into the coffin. Evidence for that is the Dark Queen.

It's just sad

[frostfire]

GW just re-released the video about GHB2019 on their youtube channel. But  the new one is about 30 seconds less than the old version they deleted previously. The deleted content is about digital pitched battle profile. That's kind of strange that GW deleted these but announced on the community preview. But it could mean nothing though.

[Mutton]

I've heard a rumor that people will be upset about point changes no matter what they are.

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Mutton said:

I've heard a rumor that people will be upset about point changes no matter what they are.

Not true.

solving some issues might be fine. But that did not happen.

[Nos]

I’ve a feeling Meeting Engagements is going to be the standard by which GW balance things now and that they’re going to push it as their major tournament/competitive mode.

Has all the character of AOS without any of the bloat and unwieldiness that comes with 2000  points. If they’re interested in pushing a MOBA/Hearthstone/MTG sort of competitor (I have no idea if they are, but wouldn’t surprise me) I reckon they’ll be looking at this mode to do it. 

Edited June 15, 2019 by Nos

[GeneralZero]

1 hour ago, Nos said:

I’ve a feeling Meeting Engagements is going to be the standard by which GW balance things now and that they’re going to push it as their major tournament/competitive mode.

No, just no. Meeting Engagement opens for new way of playing nervous and fast games. Smart and well done GW.

But the mainstream is still 1500/2000 points games. GW WON'T EVER SHOOT IN HIS OWN FOOT by doing/encouraging smaller games. They need to sell more always more miniatures.

[Kramer]

30 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

No, just no. Meeting Engagement opens for new way of playing nervous and fast games. Smart and well done GW.

But the mainstream is still 1500/2000 points games. GW WON'T EVER SHOOT IN HIS OWN FOOT by doing/encouraging smaller games. They need to sell more always more miniatures.

Just from personal experience I already started to shift to more small armies and end up buying more rather then less by playing smaller games. 

[Nos]

1 hour ago, GeneralZero said:

No, just no. Meeting Engagement opens for new way of playing nervous and fast games. Smart and well done GW.

But the mainstream is still 1500/2000 points games. GW WON'T EVER SHOOT IN HIS OWN FOOT by doing/encouraging smaller games. They need to sell more always more miniatures.

Which they can do by encouraging players with a more pick up and play/less  Investment heavy option.

Don’t underestimate how many people want to play Warhammer but are put off by how much of an unwieldy project it currently represents to do so. GW clearly understand this with their focus on snapfit models and contrast paints.

You might not like it but it’s pretty clear to me after 20+ years in the hobby where it’s going with this. 

Edited June 15, 2019 by Nos