The Rumour Thread

[chord]

2 hours ago, Siegfried VII said:

After seeing the Knight Azyros warscroll and the fact he is cheaper, my gut tells me that the Vexillor will most likely have kept only the meteor banner as an option...

The point changes and battalion's not being given points is not a big deal to me.  The changing of the warscrolls for models does.  If you bought the Vexillor for the teleport, now depending on who you play with the model doesn't do that.    They could have just upped his point cost.

[Siegfried VII]

1 minute ago, chord said:

The point changes and battalion's not being given points is not a big deal to me.  The changing of the warscrolls for models does.  If you bought the Vexillor for the teleport, now depending on who you play with the model doesn't do that.    They could have just upped his point cost.

In my opinion he is already expensive at 200pts for a one-trick pony character, if he was even more expensive I wouldn't be able to justify his inclusion...

[chord]

2 minutes ago, Siegfried VII said:

In my opinion he is already expensive at 200pts for a one-trick pony character, if he was even more expensive I wouldn't be able to justify his inclusion...

True, but now he will still be expensive for a one a trick pony. and that trick is less useful.

[Rogue Explorator]

11 hours ago, Requizen said:

Priests are different from Wizards but I wouldn't put them as automatically better. Sure they can't be unbound, but they also can't unbind without special abilities. There's also (currently) no modifiers to Prayer rolls, while many Wizards or supporting units give +1 or more modifiers to the rolls. And 2 dice for casting is much more consistent than 1 dice for praying.

Grass is always greener.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
 

I should have been much clearer on my squbble being with the design principle, not with "another army gets something better than mine".

That is a field I simply do not care about, particularly with narrative and open play around. It has been the standart as far as I go back with the hobby, that, competitively, there are stark differences between the armies. I am ok with that and do not particularly care if my army choice ends with me handycapped (or the opposite) in a tournament or matched play pick-up game.

 

However, I do care about good game design and to me, the prayers make sense neither for gameplay nor background reasons.

From a gameplay perspective, spell lores are great for the game, since without them, wizards are actually a bit weak and uninteresting, particularly with the rule of one in effect. It makes even more sense from a background perspective, it is pretty traditional in fantasy for various wizards to learn different spells for themself and you never know what an individual enemy spellcaster has up their sleeve.

The same is not true for priests. In gameplay, priests where already working quite well and as intended, there was no need to boost them or make them more interesting. Unaffected by the rule of one, you could include multiple priests of the same kind and they still did their job. And background related, it seems quite odd to me that a god would grant different abilities to priests of the same rank. Prayers aren't like spells, that you learn and research by yourself, but powers granted by your god. Why would two Warpriests of the same rank be granted different miracles?

 

There is also another design fault in Prayer Lores. Spells have the additional dial of casting difficulty, giving far more space to differentiate and balance (in the sense of not making one spell striktly better than the others). The success rate of prayers is flat, since it depends on the warscroll of the priest and not the prayer itself, making balancing the prayer much tougher. This means we are one further design mistep away from the a particular prayer being an auto include and cast at nauseum (remember, no rule of one).

 

 

The dig at no seperate pointcosts for Enlightened on foot, on the other hand, was pure sour grapes on my part, I will freely admit. I would love to have a unit of 9 enlightened, simply because I like how it looks, but as things stand, I simply can not justify the cost in money and time of the unit to myself.

[Rhellion]

11 minutes ago, chord said:

The point changes and battalion's not being given points is not a big deal to me.  The changing of the warscrolls for models does.  If you bought the Vexillor for the teleport, now depending on who you play with the model doesn't do that.    They could have just upped his point cost.

I bought and assembled an entire army in the last 2 weeks based on units and a battalion that no longer do what they did a week ago.

[kozokus]

5 minutes ago, chord said:

True, but now he will still be expensive for a one a trick pony. and that trick is less useful.

Wellllll. 140 points for a HERO with a solid armor that has Reckless at 12" that will cast multiple autohit mystic bolt at 24" range is not what i call useless. Most sorcerer can't do that much. Still he has no attacks to speak of. But i would still include him. Imagine an army with 4 knight, BOOM first turn, 4D3 mortal wounds on your army for ...ahem 560 points, well. you may try after all.

[Turragor]

13 minutes ago, Rhellion said:

I bought and assembled an entire army in the last 2 weeks based on units and a battalion that no longer do what they did a week ago.

But we knew change was coming! I feel for you but it's not feeling like true tragedy.

19 minutes ago, chord said:

True, but now he will still be expensive for a one a trick pony. and that trick is less useful.

As noted by kozokus - charge rerolls for all SCE units within 12inches at 140pts plus his non port banner, oh and a choice of the new banners. Ain't so bad imo. I could see myself using him without reckless. He'd be great in the middle of everything, like a true banner bearer.

 

[Bimli]

this is good to see so long as all armies get something. I like that you are able to take different units via mix and mash but taking mono list provides some bonus which imo is how it should be.

Hopefully we see the same love for all armies which would make for better gaming and probably quell some complaints.

oh man I feel we are going the way of 8th where armies get their own army book excitement!!! 

Now let get those dwarves/duardin/steam head/dispossessed/ ect ect out!!!

[Rhellion]

6 minutes ago, Turragor said:

But we knew change was coming! I feel for you but it's not feeling like true tragedy.

I expected point changes for sure. I didn't expect complete removal of battalions. I guess I should have!

 

Also, my time line is a bit messed up. I do know I got the army days before the army book was announced. So I DIDN'T know change was coming... I bought the army before Waaaghpaca for Adepticon but I assembled it in the last 2 weeks.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Rhellion

[Bimli]

1 minute ago, Rhellion said:

I expected point changes for sure. I didn't expect complete removal of battalions. I guess I should have!

 

Also, my time line is a bit messed up. I do know I got the army days before the army book was announced. So I DIDN'T know change was coming...

What you mean you don't have the psychic ability to see into the future

[Turragor]

18 minutes ago, Rogue Explorator said:

I should have been much clearer on my squbble being with the design principle, not with "another army gets something better than mine".

That is a field I simply do not care about, particularly with narrative and open play around. It has been the standart as far as I go back with the hobby, that, competitively, there are stark differences between the armies. I am ok with that and do not particularly care if my army choice ends with me handycapped (or the opposite) in a tournament or matched play pick-up game.

 

However, I do care about good game design and to me, the prayers make sense neither for gameplay nor background reasons.

From a gameplay perspective, spell lores are great for the game, since without them, wizards are actually a bit weak and uninteresting, particularly with the rule of one in effect. It makes even more sense from a background perspective, it is pretty traditional in fantasy for various wizards to learn different spells for themself and you never know what an individual enemy spellcaster has up their sleeve.

The same is not true for priests. In gameplay, priests where already working quite well and as intended, there was no need to boost them or make them more interesting. Unaffected by the rule of one, you could include multiple priests of the same kind and they still did their job. And background related, it seems quite odd to me that a god would grant different abilities to priests of the same rank. Prayers aren't like spells, that you learn and research by yourself, but powers granted by your god. Why would two Warpriests of the same rank be granted different miracles?

 

There is also another design fault in Prayer Lores. Spells have the additional dial of casting difficulty, giving far more space to differentiate and balance (in the sense of not making one spell striktly better than the others). The success rate of prayers is flat, since it depends on the warscroll of the priest and not the prayer itself, making balancing the prayer much tougher. This means we are one further design mistep away from the a particular prayer being an auto include and cast at nauseum (remember, no rule of one).

 

 

The dig at no seperate pointcosts for Enlightened on foot, on the other hand, was pure sour grapes on my part, I will freely admit. I would love to have a unit of 9 enlightened, simply because I like how it looks, but as things stand, I simply can not justify the cost in money and time of the unit to myself.

I see part of where you are coming from and I think there should be no spell stacking or rule of 1 fudging for prayers. I think it should apply to prayers too. I am wondering though - does it not? Maybe I missed that.

But I disagree that they don't make sense in the lore or on the board. And I think priests weren't fine when compared to mages, not really. Only fine in a vacuum (against no mage armies or other priests).

All in all though, it's early days for their implementation.

[Turragor]

8 minutes ago, Rhellion said:

I expected point changes for sure. I didn't expect complete removal of battalions. I guess I should have!

 

Also, my time line is a bit messed up. I do know I got the army days before the army book was announced. So I DIDN'T know change was coming... I bought the army before Waaaghpaca for Adepticon but I assembled it in the last 2 weeks.

Well I mean, that's much more understandable. I just hope the changes are pretty ace and even people who were dyed in the wool warrior brothers are pretty satisfied.

 

[Rhellion]

Just now, Turragor said:

Well I mean, that's much more understandable. I just hope the changes are pretty ace and even people who were dyed in the wool warrior brothers are pretty satisfied.

 

Well now I am likely to buy another protector unit (for 30) and run Celestial Hammerstrike

[Turragor]

3 minutes ago, Rhellion said:

Well now I am likely to buy another protector unit (for 30) and run Celestial Hammerstrike

Though now I think of it, they are both pointed in the GHB (as you note elsewhere) and they are originally from the Order GA book.

Never were in the old tome.

Still I am not sure how the new profiles are to be taken. I think you should consider this list a complete replacement of the SCE section in the GHB until GHB 2 (ie it's the GHB 1.5).

Edited February 15, 2017 by Turragor

[TrexPushups]

I think the bit that strikes me is there's quite a lot of "free" upgrades for SE armies - priests get an extra prayer each, totems get an extra ability etc.  Will be interesting to see how this changes the armies we see being fielded and how long it takes for other armies to be brought up to v2 status.
Would have loved to see unbinding for priest vs priest (my god's better than yours) [emoji6] 

Ah my god has a special mechanism for that.

I offer Khorne your priest's skull and all your priest's future prayers are unbound.

It really is an elegant system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wayniac]

38 minutes ago, Turragor said:

Though now I think of it, they are both pointed in the GHB (as you note elsewhere) and they are originally from the Order GA book.

Never were in the old tome.

Still I am not sure how the new profiles are to be taken. I think you should consider this list a complete replacement of the SCE section in the GHB until GHB 2 (ie it's the GHB 1.5).

I think this is something GW will need to address, honestly.  If a battalion was in GA: Order, and not in Battletome: Stormcast Eternals 1.0, is it still legal/valid if it has no superseding profile?  For instance, the Knight-Vexillor has points in two places; it would make logical sense that the most current version replaces the prior one (and GW does this with codexes in 40k, say).  But Warrior Brotherhood has not been replaced; it should still exist since it comes from GA: Order, which has not been invalidated.

[Nico]

Quote

Still I am not sure how the new profiles are to be taken. I think you should consider this list a complete replacement of the SCE section in the GHB until GHB 2 (ie it's the GHB 1.5).

They should clarify this quickly. Perhaps the Battletome itself does so. 

I'm surprised by the changes to Stormcast I've seen so far. At a very high level, Stormcast were different from the other armies as they relied on alpha strike abilities and high quality (albeit fundamentally slow) troops with the best profiles (Retributor Hammers, Dracoth Knights, Starsoul Maces) and relatively simple rules and combos (Starsoul Maces, Lord Celestant plus Retributors); whereas other armies relied on inferior troops with better combos, synergies, spells other movement tricks etc.. I'm reserving judgment as to how it will look when the dust settles.

I do love the various hero buffs, banners, prayers etc.. It will probably be more interesting, but it the reliable deep striking has gone away, then the army will play completely differently. It might become more of a durable bunker/gunline army, with some infiltration harrassment options and limited deepstriking.

 

 

[Nevvermore]

1 hour ago, Rogue Explorator said:

I should have been much clearer on my squbble being with the design principle, not with "another army gets something better than mine".

That is a field I simply do not care about, particularly with narrative and open play around. It has been the standart as far as I go back with the hobby, that, competitively, there are stark differences between the armies. I am ok with that and do not particularly care if my army choice ends with me handycapped (or the opposite) in a tournament or matched play pick-up game.

 

However, I do care about good game design and to me, the prayers make sense neither for gameplay nor background reasons.

From a gameplay perspective, spell lores are great for the game, since without them, wizards are actually a bit weak and uninteresting, particularly with the rule of one in effect. It makes even more sense from a background perspective, it is pretty traditional in fantasy for various wizards to learn different spells for themself and you never know what an individual enemy spellcaster has up their sleeve.

The same is not true for priests. In gameplay, priests where already working quite well and as intended, there was no need to boost them or make them more interesting. Unaffected by the rule of one, you could include multiple priests of the same kind and they still did their job. And background related, it seems quite odd to me that a god would grant different abilities to priests of the same rank. Prayers aren't like spells, that you learn and research by yourself, but powers granted by your god. Why would two Warpriests of the same rank be granted different miracles?

 

There is also another design fault in Prayer Lores. Spells have the additional dial of casting difficulty, giving far more space to differentiate and balance (in the sense of not making one spell striktly better than the others). The success rate of prayers is flat, since it depends on the warscroll of the priest and not the prayer itself, making balancing the prayer much tougher. This means we are one further design mistep away from the a particular prayer being an auto include and cast at nauseum (remember, no rule of one).

 

 

The dig at no seperate pointcosts for Enlightened on foot, on the other hand, was pure sour grapes on my part, I will freely admit. I would love to have a unit of 9 enlightened, simply because I like how it looks, but as things stand, I simply can not justify the cost in money and time of the unit to myself.

These new Prayers do have a casting difficulty, but it's on D6 and not 2D6. Check the leaked images.

[Turragor]

2 minutes ago, Nico said:

I do love the various hero buffs, banners, prayers etc.. It will probably be more interesting, but it the reliable deep striking has gone away, then the army will play completely differently. It might become more of a durable bunker/gunline army, with some infiltration harrassment options and limited deepstriking.

 

 

This sounds like a more fun and complete army on the board.

I would hesitate a guess that the meta we saw emerge was the result of an incomplete army/range.

I view them as a pretty rich faction right now, you could call them complete. Interestingly though, there could still be the sacrosanct, auxillary and ruination chambers to go... but that's now old info I think. Again maybe addressed in the tome itself.

The vanguard (they not in the old stormhost composition breakdown) and extremis chambers (they were in that old stormhost composition breakdown) were substantial releases.

 

[Carnelian]

I'm so excited for saturday! I've barely read what everyone above has posted as don't want it to be spoiled but I had to share my excite

Re writing rules, warscrolls and battalions is bloody brilliant if you ask me! So cool they're keeping it fresh

[Lord Brando]

Hi Guys, 

IIRC skyborne slayers and warrior brotherhood were never in the stormcast book anyways, they are from the grand alliance book. I may have missed the memo, but does it say in the book that they are no longer valid? 

Thanks if you can let me know. 

[Kisada11]

As for rules changes invalidating purchases ... I'm guessing that's why so often I see new people advised to pick armies/units they love over armies/units based solely on rules.

If you're trying to stay on the cutting edge of meta power lists then I think costs are expected to be higher than a fluffy/narrative style player. Buying and selling of armies/units frequently would seem like the norm to stay on top.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gaz Taylor]

13 minutes ago, Lord Brando said:

Hi Guys, 

IIRC skyborne slayers and warrior brotherhood were never in the stormcast book anyways, they are from the grand alliance book. I may have missed the memo, but does it say in the book that they are no longer valid? 

Thanks if you can let me know. 

They are still valid but have no points so can't be used in matched play.

 

[Lord Brando]

Just now, Gaz Taylor said:

They are still valid but have no points so can't be used in matched play.

 

But their matched play profile is in the generals handbook and apply to warscrolls outside of the book, does it list them in the stormcast book and say no points/not valid? Or do they note this somewhere that the storm cast book invalidates rules from another book?

 

[BaldoBeardo]

But their matched play profile is in the generals handbook and apply to warscrolls outside of the book, does it list them in the stormcast book and say no points/not valid? Or do they note this somewhere that the storm cast book invalidates rules from another book?
 

Looking forward to the first 'spirited' TO discussion around taking battalion pts costs from the 1st GHB, but using the lower unit pts costs from the SCE book in the same army...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk