The Rumour Thread

[Vasshpit]

4 hours ago, Boar said:

Rage against Moochine

Since new aelf aesthethic is so well recieved they will milk it some more and it will be new Megaboss on Moocrasha😉

@Boar

Just imagine the savagery of an Ironjawz "moo"nster!

It'd be "moo"nificent!!

Oooooh! Yep, going to "milk" this one out! 

 

 

😶

[Twisted Firaun]

51 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Well isn’t that the rule? ‘I have to buy them’ is my guiding principle on new AoS releases the last few years. 

Well played

 

[The World Tree]

2 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

That's just awfully convoluted. I don't like that line of thinking.

The wording is convoluted. The ruling is not. It is just the core rules functioning as they do.

[amysrevenge]

15 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

The wording is convoluted. The ruling is not. It is just the core rules functioning as they do.

If we all played the game as the rules are written, it would be simple.  But we don't - we apply Rend to the save and not to the dice roll all the time, as a combination of laziness and previous game hangover.  Me too.  I have to force myself to step back and do it the way it's written.

I've mostly succeeded with battleshock rolls - bravery modifiers apply to the bravery characteristic, and casualties apply to the dice roll, and you compare the result.  It would be simpler math to also apply the casualties to bravery characteristic, and it's a hangover to previous games where Leadership modifiers all went toward the characteristic and not the dice roll.  But the correct way to do it is to apply the modifiers to the characteristic and the causalties to the dice roll. 

Most of the time it doesn't make a difference and the result is the same, but occasionally it does make a difference, and then the player doing it correctly still gets the correct result, and the lazy/hangover player gets the wrong result.

[The World Tree]

6 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

If we all played the game as the rules are written, it would be simple.  But we don't - we apply Rend to the save and not to the dice roll all the time, as a combination of laziness and previous game hangover.  Me too.  I have to force myself to step back and do it the way it's written.

I've mostly succeeded with battleshock rolls - bravery modifiers apply to the bravery characteristic, and casualties apply to the dice roll, and you compare the result.  It would be simpler math to also apply the casualties to bravery characteristic, and it's a hangover to previous games where Leadership modifiers all went toward the characteristic and not the dice roll.  But the correct way to do it is to apply the modifiers to the characteristic and the causalties to the dice roll. 

Most of the time it doesn't make a difference and the result is the same, but occasionally it does make a difference, and then the player doing it correctly still gets the correct result, and the lazy/hangover player gets the wrong result.

I get it, but it is also simple. It has an unrendable 2+ save until it moves down a bracket. Easy

[zilberfrid]

2 hours ago, The World Tree said:

The wording is convoluted. The ruling is not. It is just the core rules functioning as they do.

Okay, then I don't like that bit of the core rules.

I don't see why the "roll can't be reduced to less than 1" needs to exist at all.

In this case, it makes the dino overly resilient against anything but mortal wounds. Meaning armies need to apply more magic.

In most other cases, it won't matter at all, so it mostly adds rules without merit.

[The World Tree]

21 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Okay, then I don't like that bit of the core rules.

I don't see why the "roll can't be reduced to less than 1" needs to exist at all.

In this case, it makes the dino overly resilient against anything but mortal wounds. Meaning armies need to apply more magic.

In most other cases, it won't matter at all, so it mostly adds rules without merit.

It is cool - the shell is super tough, but once it breaks it quickly deteriorates

[KingBrodd]

6 hours ago, Tonhel said:

I think this weekend was more AoS heavy, so next weekend will go full on 40K. I expect a couple of new primaris kits. 

I expect the same. A new Lumineth hero or unit and maybe the Sons of Behemat tease that's it.

[Mutton]

I think anything with a 2+ save that can be re-rolled is a negative play experience. I had hoped the original intent behind nerfing Mystic Shield in 2.0 was to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. It appears that whole mantra has slipped by the wayside.

[zilberfrid]

15 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

It is cool - the shell is super tough, but once it breaks it quickly deteriorates

I get what they want to portray, but the mechanics are not to my taste. I'll have to add a bunch of Sisters to my City and Gyro's to my Skyport, that could solve it.

[Aelfric]

8 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I get what they want to portray, but the mechanics are not to my taste. I'll have to add a bunch of Sisters to my City and Gyro's to my Skyport, that could solve it.

Or you could fly over it with a Flamespyre Phoenix.

[zilberfrid]

14 minutes ago, Aelfric said:

Or you could fly over it with a Flamespyre Phoenix.

Cities has options. I don't have any of them ready at the moment, but they exist.

I just don't like the forcing of a certain game mechanic this blatantly.

[Aelfric]

22 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Cities has options. I don't have any of them ready at the moment, but they exist.

I just don't like the forcing of a certain game mechanic this blatantly.

I see your point.  But, so long as the end result still allows options for dealing with it, I'm not too fussed.  After a while it'll become just another rule once the initial wierdness of it has rubbed off.

[Skabnoze]

20 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Cities has options. I don't have any of them ready at the moment, but they exist.

I just don't like the forcing of a certain game mechanic this blatantly.

I agree.  However this seems very much like an overlooked case of how the core rules were written.  Most likely they decided that the simplest route to go was to explicitly allow this mechanic in the errata instead of rewriting this part of the core rules.

In an ideal world I think the core rules should not include this weird mechanic loop-hole based on a specific value of a core stat.  Every value of a stat like armor-save should behave the same in the core rules.  And then a mechanic like this should exist as a warscroll rule that can then potentially be turned off based on the behemoth damage chart (similar to how Kharadron Overlord ships lose access to some rules based on damage).

This ruling feels a lot like something that was expedient and simple.  I would not be surprised to see the core rules for armor saves & rend changed slightly whenever they write AoS 3.0 to eliminate this rules exception.

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, Mutton said:

I think anything with a 2+ save that can be re-rolled is a negative play experience. I had hoped the original intent behind nerfing Mystic Shield in 2.0 was to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. It appears that whole mantra has slipped by the wayside.

I am hoping they are mindful of the impacts of putting too much damage reduction back into the game.  It was the worst part about AoS v1.  Stuff should die in a game like this and very few things should be ultra-durable.  That said, I don't particularly mind the way this specific case is handled since it turns off once you force a few wounds through.  So having a model where you are incentivized to whittle down with some spells/mortal-wounds before you commit an armor-cracking unit into melee is not a bad thing to have in the game.  If this ability was active as long as the model is on the board then it would be very poor design in my opinion. 

In my experience the further you go into a particular edition of a miniature game the more rule-interactions like this you run into as they try to keep things fresh and explore design space.  Eventually you start to reach a tipping point where a new edition is the best way to clean things up.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Skabnoze

[zilberfrid]

The new talk about the Skitarii reads like it originally was an article describing a presale.

Still want to use at least some of them for something.

Edited March 30, 2020 by zilberfrid

[swarmofseals]

I'm also in the camp that thinks that this likely will create negative play experiences.

But that said, you really don't have to kill it. It's not that damage efficient (unless you have a lot of Chaos Daemons) and it's one model. 

You can:

• Use mortal wounds to break the shell
• Chaff it
• Focus on objectives

A lot of negative play experiences are manifestations of the mindset that you need to or should be aiming to kill everything your opponent puts on the table. I don't deny that this upsets people, but a simple shift of perspective will both improve one's skill with the game and probably make a lot of these kinds of things feel less bad!

[Vasshpit]

Anymore info regarding those new Gloomspite battalions and heros leaked from the next White Dwarf?

[SleeperAgent]

3 hours ago, Mutton said:

I think anything with a 2+ save that can be re-rolled is a negative play experience. I had hoped the original intent behind nerfing Mystic Shield in 2.0 was to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. It appears that whole mantra has slipped by the wayside.

And people called my spooky boys {"broken" for having an army wide 4+ originally. Tried to tell em not getting cover bonus was a big deal.

[RandyRyan]

2 hours ago, Vasshpit said:

Anymore info regarding those new Gloomspite battalions and heros leaked from the next White Dwarf?

They were just some custom rules for the Gobbapalooza converted to ride squigs

[Whitefang]

Lorewise people should think LRL this way:

they are “High elf plus elemental path”

instead of “high elf integrated with elemental path”

Were they aosy high elf? Yes.

But “something” happened.

Then there came the elemental path. But this doesn’t mean the high elfy part is gone.

Their relationship with nature and elements is very much like what happened in Princess Mononoke and ancient Chinese philosophy “be the one with the world/realm.”

[LuminethMage]

And just to add, they always had this aspect, just not as pronounced, and a bit changed. The Caledor Dragons could be seen as Earth/Fire spirits which the elves awoke with their singing. It's very similar in a way. And they always bonded very strongly with their land (be it Ulthuan or Athel Loren). It's a new twist on things, but it also builds up nicely on existing lore. In my view at least. 

[Thiagoma]

1 hour ago, Whitefang said:

Lorewise people should think LRL this way:

they are “High elf plus elemental path”

instead of “high elf integrated with elemental path”

Were they aosy high elf? Yes.

But “something” happened.

Then there came the elemental path. But this doesn’t mean the high elfy part is gone.

Their relationship with nature and elements is very much like what happened in Princess Mononoke and ancient Chinese philosophy “be the one with the world/realm.”

Do you belive we are gona see a second element in this release, or just a full montain range?

[Kadeton]

12 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

They also didn't answer the ambiguity about the Skink Chief on Stegadon general in Thunderlizard. Skink Chief on Stegadon states that command traits and artefacts only affect the rider, but the Thunderlizard command trait says that it only affects the mount and not the rider. I'd guess that RAI is that it works, but RAW I'm not so sure.

EDIT: also, for thunderquake temple/star host the list specifies an EOTG/Stegadon w/ Skink Chief, and 2 Stegadons/Bastiladons in any combination. That's the specific warscroll Stegadon, not the keyword Stegadon, but technically the Skink Chief on Stegadon is part of the Stegadon warscroll. It's not even a subheader, they just share the warscroll right-out. Would it be legal to include a Skink Chief on Stegadon as one of the two "Stegadons or Bastiladons in any combination"? If not, is there a specific rule somewhere that I can reference?

Yeah they really shot themselves in the foot with this bizarre choice of warscroll construction. There should have just been a separate warscroll for "Skink Chief (on Stegadon)" which would have prevented all this confusion.

Given that the Pitched Battle Profiles table has separate entries for "Stegadon" and "Stegadon with Skink Chief", I think the safest option is just to assume that the Thunderquake Starhost requires one Stegadon with Skink Chief and the other Stegadons were intended to be without - if you stick to that, nobody can argue with it. But lacking a proper clarification, I can't see any rules preventing you from taking Chiefs on the other Stegadons, though your opponents and TOs might have different opinions. "It doesn't say I can't" is rarely a good foundation for making a case.

The Stegadon with Skink Chief General with the Prime Warbeast trait is just GW tying themselves in knots for similar reasons. If Skink Chief on Stegadon was a separate warscroll, the rule limiting traits to the Chief's attacks wouldn't need to exist and everything would just work as intended. But they've screwed it up, and now there's definitely an argument to be made that Prime Warbeast does nothing in that instance. At least they fixed it for the Engine of the Gods, I guess?

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

You can:

• Use mortal wounds to break the shell
• Chaff it
• Focus on objectives

A lot of negative play experiences are manifestations of the mindset that you need to or should be aiming to kill everything your opponent puts on the table.

Agreed. I think WFB veterans (like me) are particularly prone to having issues adapting to a game where victory is less about killing and more about positioning.