The Rumour Thread

[Kramer]

1 minute ago, Ravinsild said:

Might that fall under a Psychic Awakening supplement? In 40k they just added some extra rules to factions which helped shuffle around the meta and breathed new life into some factions, like Chaos Space Marines, but didn't come out with new full on Codexes. 

Maybe, I'm not a 40K player. But it seemed kind of 'rules bloaty' to me. Do I have it right that you need the Codex + the relevant Psychic awakening supplement to play the up to date army?

[Ravinsild]

Just now, Kramer said:

Maybe, I'm not a 40K player. But it seemed kind of 'rules bloaty' to me. Do I have it right that you need the Codex + the relevant Psychic awakening supplement to play the up to date army?

Yes, that's correct. 

[Kramer]

Just now, Ravinsild said:

Yes, that's correct. 

Hmm I play with a lot of players who don't play regularly or quite new. The idea of have rules in different places really puts me off. 

But that's of course personal. If it's campaign content that becomes mainstream like malign portents and the Heralds. Those are edge cases for me. Because I love the campaign (models) but really dislike have rules all over the place. 

[GeneralZero]

59 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Hmm I play with a lot of players who don't play regularly or quite new. The idea of have rules in different places really puts me off. 

That's the main comlain about the 40K mess with so many layers of rules from so many sources. I hope that AoS won't go this route and keep to the BT+GH rule. AoS is miles ahead in this concern.

[Koradrel of Chrace]

At some point I think it would be a good idea for them to add units to the existing armies that have relatively few kits.

[JackStreicher]

9 minutes ago, Koradrel of Chrace said:

At some point I think it would be a good idea for them to add units to the existing armies that have relatively few kits.

I’d love that!

Flesh Eaters are in dire need of MOAR units!

I personally would also really really love more choice for my Idoneth.

[Overread]

In general AoS armies are in one of three states.

1) Small armies that work but have a restricted roster of choices. Daughters of Khaine, Idoneth, Slaanesh, Flesheaters, Khadorans - a LOT of armies fit into this slot. 

2) They are big armies that have a diverse range of choices, but many older sculpts and materials. Skaven and Seraphon really stand at the fore of this group

3) They are doing good. Few armies are in this block, but it is steadily expanding. Stormcast rule, but Nighthaunt and Gloomspite Gitz both feature well with diverse army rosters on offer. 

 

It should be noted that GW has done really well in that none of the armies are really being left totally out of the picture in terms of balance. Heck some armies such as Daughters of Khiane and Slaanesh have done really well (if not too well) even though they have some of the smallest unit rosters on offer. 

 

 

The real question is if GW is going to update armies in a block. So almost like releasing a 2.5 release worth of models and additional mini-battletome to add onto them. Or if they are going to slip one or two models into every army in a steady order.

[Neverchosen]

I would be slightly less annoyed with a Psychic Awakening type deal with AOS as the warscrolls are online and it would hopefully not invalidate our current books and rules. If it were simply a supplement updating warscrolls and point costs, I would be less worried about losing out on potential new battalions and artifacts as long as I could incorporate any new units or changes to old ones into my existing armies without feeling pressured to buy the new book. 

[TheWilddog]

I have actually really enjoyed the Psychic Awakening approach in 40k.  It has breathed new life and excitement into armies that were most likely years away from getting traditional updates.  Just imagine if a Psychic Awakening style AOS supplement dropped some new battalions and other goodies for older armies like Legions of Nagash, would be sweet!!!!!   

Edited April 2, 2020 by TheWilddog

[Sleboda]

As a 34 year veteran of Warhammer, I find calling Legions of Nagash an "older army" amusing.

 

😁

[Koradrel of Chrace]

@Sleboda Dang, you've got me beat by two years!

[Noserenda]

7 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

As a 34 year veteran of Warhammer, I find calling Legions of Nagash an "older army" amusing.

 

😁

Well i mean its a return to the older way of running Undead all in one blob

Id really like to see some Eshin love, even if its just a Warcry or Underworlds box to get some updated gutter Runners and maybe return Eshin Sorcerors or Triads  

[Elmir]

52 minutes ago, TheWilddog said:

I have actually really enjoyed the Psychic Awakening approach in 40k.  It has breathed new life and excitement into armies that were most likely years away from getting traditional updates.  Just imagine it a Psychic Awakening style AOS supplement dropped some new battalions and other goodies for older armies like Legions of Nagash, would be sweet!!!!!   

I disagree... Not with GW clinging on to books as their main source for gaming rules. Carrying an enormous army to a game is already hard enough without the need of several books to play with a single army. 

 

If they actually swapped to a full card based system for rules (with a binder to keep it together and to allow players to make their own battletome with only the units/rules they are using)… I would love PA style expansions. 

 

Right now, 40k is an absolute mess of rules diffusion... What they set out to fix at the end of seventh ed is back with a vengeance in less than two years. I actually still feel like I was ripped off buying most of the 40k rule books. 

[TheWilddog]

1 minute ago, Elmir said:

I disagree... Not with GW clinging on to books as their main source for gaming rules. Carrying an enormous army to a game is already hard enough without the need of several books to play with a single army. 

 

If they actually swapped to a full card based system for rules (with a binder to keep it together and to allow players to make their own battletome with only the units/rules they are using)… I would love PA style expansions. 

 

Right now, 40k is an absolute mess of rules diffusion... What they set out to fix at the end of seventh ed is back with a vengeance in less than two years. I actually still feel like I was ripped off buying most of the 40k rule books. 

I see your point, having to have a couple of books definitely sucks. I just feel that given the choice between that and having to wait years between updates as was the old way, I will take some rules bloat. 

[Overread]

I think there are good and bad parts from the PA system that 40K has going right now. The good is trickle fed models so that more armies get new toys spread out. Of course not every army got new models, some only got new/updated rules. That is where it can get "messy" I think. When you have to buy expansion pack books to keep all the rules together. In general AoS has been better than 40K for this. AoS has mostly remained quite tight and updates in other publications are often casual play or optional elements. 40K is a lot more of a mess I think in that regard. 

 

Hopefully AoS learns from PA. Giving most armies a new thing every so often is great as even one new model can redkindle interest in armies. New rules are nice too, but they can get bloated. 

 

I'd say that my interest in Eldar - who got new models - is far greater than my interest in Tyranids right now; which only got a rules update in PA and no shiny new models (or updates to existing ones)

[Elmir]

7 minutes ago, TheWilddog said:

I see your point, having to have a couple of books definitely sucks. I just feel that given the choice between that and having to wait years between updates as was the old way, I will take some rules bloat. 

Well that's the thing though... Compare it to AoS... Do you feel like armies are really "left to rot" for several years before getting an update? The game hasn't even been out for 5 years and it feels like half the armies are already getting updates to bring them in line with the current edition. 

Like I previously said, I really do feel like battletomes/codexes are what is holding back the current GW rules systems (although AoS seems to be more streamlined then the absolute mess of beta rules, PA updates, FAQs etc that 40k is).

I LOVE how well different death units all integrate with each other for instance. It allows for amazing list building flexibility and truely like what they did in that Grand Alliance. However... I hate the fact that if I want to field Arkhan the black in a legion of Grief army (perfectly possible nowadays), I have to grab FOUR books: Legions of Nagash (for any warscrolls that aren't NH), the nighthaunt book (for any NH warscrolls), the forbidden power expansion (for my allegiance, traits and artifacts) AND the friggin OBR book because Arkhan got changed compared to the original LoN book. 

Sure, this is one of the most extreme examples... But it could have been just a single binder with warscroll cards in there (and so far unreleased allegiance cards, magic spell cards and artifact cards) that allowed me to make my own army without any clutter... 

This might just be an unpopular opinion, but I say DEATH TO THE BATTLETOME as a rules source. It's holding wargaming back. 

[Hagbean]

I could be getting this completely wrong, but a few months ago I recall there being murmurs of something huge being announced in the AoS world with re: to Forge World, I believe they stripped the site of a bunch of older sculpts? 

When was the last time we saw an AoS release in Forge World? The SC heads? 

What would you like to see? I think something for each grand alliance would be cool.

[Clif Blunderbrows]

1 hour ago, Elmir said:

Well that's the thing though... Compare it to AoS... Do you feel like armies are really "left to rot" for several years before getting an update? The game hasn't even been out for 5 years and it feels like half the armies are already getting updates to bring them in line with the current edition. 

Like I previously said, I really do feel like battletomes/codexes are what is holding back the current GW rules systems (although AoS seems to be more streamlined then the absolute mess of beta rules, PA updates, FAQs etc that 40k is).

I LOVE how well different death units all integrate with each other for instance. It allows for amazing list building flexibility and truely like what they did in that Grand Alliance. However... I hate the fact that if I want to field Arkhan the black in a legion of Grief army (perfectly possible nowadays), I have to grab FOUR books: Legions of Nagash (for any warscrolls that aren't NH), the nighthaunt book (for any NH warscrolls), the forbidden power expansion (for my allegiance, traits and artifacts) AND the friggin OBR book because Arkhan got changed compared to the original LoN book. 

Sure, this is one of the most extreme examples... But it could have been just a single binder with warscroll cards in there (and so far unreleased allegiance cards, magic spell cards and artifact cards) that allowed me to make my own army without any clutter... 

This might just be an unpopular opinion, but I say DEATH TO THE BATTLETOME as a rules source. It's holding wargaming back. 

I’m not a death player so I might be missing something here, but you’re specifically calling out warscrolls which are available for free online. As I understand it, aside from warscrolls what you would need are the allegiance abilities, the core rules, the current generals handbook and any relevant FAQs.  Which would bring you down to (correct me if I’m wrong) forbidden power, the gaming book, and maybe the Nighthaunt Battletome? Or does legions of grief also use allegiance abilities from Legions of Nagash? 
 

Regardless, I’m not trying to say you’re wrong about how spread out the rules are—I agree 100%, it’s a pain in the ass. I just want to point out that if your major issue is with warscrolls, you may be able to rectify that now (and for free).

[mojojojo101]

2 hours ago, xking said:

Hopefully we can get some more  'Soul Wars'  wrath of the everchosen style books.    Get more plot progression and rules.

Frankly I hope we avoid the pace of PA with campaign books. I don't want to see these things released practically once a month. It doesn't allow anytime to actually enjoy the thing. I know there are extenuating circumstances but at this point how ma people have actually had time to have a proper deep dive into WotE, run campaigns, experiment with new army composition etc? The internet has this idea that something is over 10 minutes after it releases, I hope GW avoids that with AoS.

FWIW more than 2 campaign books a year is pushing into me. I think that also divides the year up nicely between campaign books and GHB/winter FAQ.

[King Under the Mountain]

12 hours ago, Beliman said:

You are all wrong.

Every model that is not a dwarf is just a wasted model. 

I welcome the next iteration of Fantasy.  "Age of Grungi" 

 

[zilberfrid]

20 minutes ago, King Under the Mountain said:

I welcome the next iteration of Fantasy.  "Age of Grungi" 

Age of Valaya.

Can't waste that chance to nerdrage misgynists.

[King Under the Mountain]

2 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Age of Valaya.

Can't waste that chance to nerdrage misgynists.

What do you mean?  I'm sure you can mention "Female Space Marines" in any 40k forum and no-one will bite off your head.

[zilberfrid]

6 minutes ago, King Under the Mountain said:

What do you mean?  I'm sure you can mention "Female Space Marines" in any 40k forum and no-one will bite off your head.

I don't know about that, but was a bit disappointed when female miniatures were discussed here.

[King Under the Mountain]

9 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I don't know about that, but was a bit disappointed when female miniatures were discussed here.

Not good.

I'm still irked that we don't have one female Dwarf for any of the AoS Armies  

[zilberfrid]

35 minutes ago, King Under the Mountain said:

Not good.

I'm still irked that we don't have one female Dwarf for any of the AoS Armies  

In some ways, there was more female representation in the '80's, it seems.

No order human females, no female dwarves...

When I tried to discuss it here, there was a real pushback. I will not comment about it any further, because it's not the thread for it, nor do I think they will alter their minds anyway.

Edited April 3, 2020 by zilberfrid