The Rumour Thread

[Galas]

10 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

... You know everyone will just switch to Mortis Praetorians and get +1 save from Katakros, right?

Being wholly within 18" of a pretty expensive model is not the same as "lol +1 unconditional save for all of the army lol" 

[JackStreicher]

3 minutes ago, Galas said:

Being wholly within 18" of a pretty expensive model is not the same as "lol +1 unconditional save for all of the army lol" 

18“ is A LOT though

[PrimeElectrid]

3 minutes ago, Galas said:

Being wholly within 18" of a pretty expensive model is not the same as "lol +1 unconditional save for all of the army lol" 

It’s 36” (at top bracket)

[Galas]

You are right, 36" until he receives 3 wounds. Still, not the same. Hes a 600 point model with a 4"move.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Galas

[Mutton]

What's important about the Petrifex change is that now Bonereapers have to choose between a +1 save with Katakros OR their Bludgeon CA. Having both ultra defense and ultra offense was the real issue.

Also, it's a crime that Kroak remains at 320.

[The World Tree]

16 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

On this point, it has happened before in the pre-pandemic/pre-delayed timeline days.  There were points for Bonesplitters in a GHB before the first Bonesplitters battletome came out a month or so later (whichever year that was - 2017?).

Good memory! Though the models for those already existed

[woolf]

1 minute ago, Mutton said:

What's important about the Petrifex change is that now Bonereapers have to choose between a +1 save with Katakros OR their Bludgeon CA. Having both ultra defense and ultra offense was the real issue.

Also, it's a crime that Kroak remains at 320.

was about to say the same. and also Katakross eats a discipline point for handing out the buff (although he comes with a bunch). before Katakros was stronger in Petrifex than his own legion which was weird.

[amysrevenge]

5 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

Good memory! Though the models for those already existed

If they hadn't been my active project at the time I would never have remembered hahahaha

[PrimeElectrid]

10 minutes ago, woolf said:

was about to say the same. and also Katakross eats a discipline point for handing out the buff (although he comes with a bunch). before Katakros was stronger in Petrifex than his own legion which was weird.

I mean if you took Katakros he was using his CA all the time anyway (and he comes with 5).

 

20 minutes ago, Galas said:

You are right, 36" until he receives 3 wounds. Still, not the same. Hes a 600 point model with a 4"move.

500 points, with +3 move CA, and a large base, and a 3W self heal.

Yeah there’s a little more nuance to it, but biggest loss is Bludgeon (partly offset by gaining access to Zandtos in Mortis).

[angrycontra]

Important difference with Katakros legion compared to pre-nerf petrifex is that katakros is really expensive support hero. In combat he is actually pretty abysmal for his cost. This means that obr player has to make a hard choice between having tougher to kill guys but with lousy board presence, or easier to kill but with more numbers (and speed/power/anti-magic depending on legion). And let's not forget that no-one is gonna put katakros and nagash in same legion, 'cos there's not gonna be room for anything else.

Gaunt summoner nerf was good but damn, I'm really disappointed that those leaks were true. Like I still don't understand those maniak weirdnob and weirdnob shaman increases (or cities battlemage increase but with no touching on sorceress). Does anyone actually use maniak weirdnobs and that weirdnob shaman has always been massively overshadowed by warchanters (and now even more so). 

[swarmofseals]

The nerf to PE is still significant even considering the continued existence of Katakros. Katakros builds were good, but they were generally considered to be weaker than PE builds, and certainly less flexible in their construction. It's pretty tough to fit quad crawlers in a Katakros build, for example.

We also won't have to deal with a 2+ rr1's Nagash anymore.

I'm also a bit surprised that Kroak was untouched, but I think we need to give it some time to see if the nerf to Salamanders is enough. It's a pretty huge nerf, and it will be hard to fit 3-6 sallies, Kroak with all the fixin's and a lot of Skinks in the same list. It may be that Starborne Kroak builds won't be nearly as good without all of those tools. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see his points cost go up in the future.

It's flying under the radar a bit but the changes to Gaunt Summoner and Legion of Chaos Ascendant are also pretty important and I'm glad to see them.

Edited July 20, 2020 by swarmofseals

[alghero81]

To be fair Ossiarchs had only one excellent list that caused problems, everything else was absolutely normal. Not that is bad, but they are so expensive and mostly slow that if they don’t “win” by the second turn they are most likely fried.
It will be interesting to see how they react to this highly predicted change. 
I’m still of the opinion that the best solution is to give points value to the sub-factions like the battalions. That way if you use vanilla you are good, otherwise you pay for what extra you want. 

[Overread]

Eh I dislike the idea of adding points to subfactions. It just introduces a huge complicating layer to points balance, especially since some bonuses might work great with some unit combinations and not with others. So how do you balance the points for a single element that has impacts on multiple sub-elements. 

It also takes points out of the models and puts them into something invisible, something I don't think is intuitive nor that good when a core focus of the game is putting models on the table. 

 

 

In the end knocking petrifax down to the same level as the others is the right choice and one that I think most players were expecting would happen. Even for Ossiarch players its a welcome change since it makes other subfaction choices worth taking now without feeling like you're taking a "weaker" option. 

[Baron Klatz]

2 hours ago, Malakithe said:

And it only applies to melee...so now they melt to shooting more

Oh, that defensive siege bonus their faction gets in Wrath of Everchosen as the attacking army will balance out better then.

Will be interesting to see the results now with then bringing the fight to the walls.

[KingBrodd]

36 minutes ago, Baron Klatz said:

Oh, that defensive siege bonus their faction gets in Wrath of Everchosen as the attacking army will balance out better then.

Will be interesting to see the results now with then bringing the fight to the walls.

 

9 hours ago, Incineroar87 said:

With the story campaign slowly heading towards Gordrakk and his eventual siege against Azyr.  You recon we will see another Orruk army / more Ironjawz + a new Stormcast Chamber around then ?

Did someone say Siege? Sieges usually take place at Castles, Castles have Battlements, Battlements are attached to Walls, Walls have Gates, Gates are broken by Gatebreaker Gargants!!

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, alghero81 said:

I’m still of the opinion that the best solution is to give points value to the sub-factions like the battalions. That way if you use vanilla you are good, otherwise you pay for what extra you want. 

From a balancing standpoint I agree. 
From the ‘its already becoming crazy hard to introduce someone to AoS’ standpoint. Please no. 

the intricacies should be in the game not the listbuilding. At least from my perspective.  And I get that lots of players like that layers upon layers kind of thing. But it’s why I lost interest in WHFB back in the day. Just wasn’t possible to be low key into the hobby. It required a serious time investment to work. 
and the promise of an easy to learn hard to master AoS got me back.
And the pretty models of course 😅

[swarmofseals]

I finally got a chance to really tuck into the 2020 battleplans and auxiliary objectives. I really think that these sections are flying under the radar and will be absolutely massive (for tournament play especially).

In reading through all of the battleplans I can't find a single one that I outright dislike. They all look fun, and some of the new and updated ones look especially interesting. There's plenty of differences from plan to plan, so people are really going to need to think about the battleplans when list building for tournaments.

Auxiliary objectives are also really cool, especially over a 5 round tournament. In a single game or 3 round event they are less game changing, perhaps. But as it is in a 5 round event you will need to use almost all of the auxiliaries at some point. You'll really need to think about what auxiliaries you want to use during each battleplan and against each opponent. It's a potentially very deep additional layer of skill testing that runs across the entire event.

Most importantly, I think that the auxiliaries will really push people to build more balanced lists. If your army struggles to complete half the auxiliary objectives then you will need to rethink it even if it's super powerful in a vacuum. Meanwhile, dividing resources between auxiliaries and normal gameplay will add another layer of skill.

[alghero81]

30 minutes ago, Kramer said:

From a balancing standpoint I agree. 
From the ‘its already becoming crazy hard to introduce someone to AoS’ standpoint. Please no. 

the intricacies should be in the game not the listbuilding. At least from my perspective.  And I get that lots of players like that layers upon layers kind of thing. But it’s why I lost interest in WHFB back in the day. Just wasn’t possible to be low key into the hobby. It required a serious time investment to work. 
and the promise of an easy to learn hard to master AoS got me back.
And the pretty models of course 😅

You still have vanilla armies with no additions. Sub-factions are already a big component of list building, either they are too good to pass or you use them thematically and then it does not matter cause then you are not playing competitive. If you play competitive, a value more does not make the difference, but lets people like me enjoying my Ossiarch without knowing that I have to pay the Petrifex “tax” even if I’m not using it cause now all units for a year will be balanced considering they once were Petrifex and in the best scenario some will go down with the winter FAQ.

I get we don’t want to make things more complex, but that would be the quickest solution for who wants to enjoy balanced units without considering that they may be overpowered in a specific build.

[alghero81]

2 hours ago, Overread said:

Eh I dislike the idea of adding points to subfactions. It just introduces a huge complicating layer to points balance, especially since some bonuses might work great with some unit combinations and not with others. So how do you balance the points for a single element that has impacts on multiple sub-elements. 

I get your point but you balance the units in their vanilla state and you balance the sub-factions the same way you balance battalions. Nothing different.

The problem of changing things like this is that it takes two point adjustments to even out the first nerf.  And let’s be honest the Ossiarch were already pointed considering the Petrifex cost. This way, if Petrifex gets unbalanced, you just up the cost without affecting the rest.

[HollowHills]

1 hour ago, swarmofseals said:

I finally got a chance to really tuck into the 2020 battleplans and auxiliary objectives. I really think that these sections are flying under the radar and will be absolutely massive (for tournament play especially).

In reading through all of the battleplans I can't find a single one that I outright dislike. They all look fun, and some of the new and updated ones look especially interesting. There's plenty of differences from plan to plan, so people are really going to need to think about the battleplans when list building for tournaments.

Auxiliary objectives are also really cool, especially over a 5 round tournament. In a single game or 3 round event they are less game changing, perhaps. But as it is in a 5 round event you will need to use almost all of the auxiliaries at some point. You'll really need to think about what auxiliaries you want to use during each battleplan and against each opponent. It's a potentially very deep additional layer of skill testing that runs across the entire event.

Most importantly, I think that the auxiliaries will really push people to build more balanced lists. If your army struggles to complete half the auxiliary objectives then you will need to rethink it even if it's super powerful in a vacuum. Meanwhile, dividing resources between auxiliaries and normal gameplay will add another layer of skill.

I really agree about the auxiliaries. At first I looked at them like hidden agendas and thought I'd just take the ones that were easiest for my army, but then you see that in a large event you have to go through them all. That means there is going to be quite a skill gap between someone who can win 5 games and someone who can win 5 games while accomplishing these tasks.

It also means that some of the single dimension lists we've seen in the past will need to diversify a bit.

[swarmofseals]

@HollowHills totally. Also the change in scoring for battleplans, which I suspect many people didn't even notice. Now in addition to occasional rules that change who captures objectives, many of the battleplans have additional scoring if an objective is held by a particular unit type (usually battleline, leader, or behemoth).

That asymmetric scoring could really change the dynamic of certain battleplans by forcing certain builds to be more active or allowing certain builds to be more passive due to asymmetric scoring.

Take Total Conquest, for example. In that scenario one natural dynamic will be for each side to hold their own objective plus one of the neutral objectives. Assuming both sides are able to do this on the first turn, the game is a stalemate headed for a draw until one player does something. Under the new design, if one of the sides only has a single leader and the other side does not, then the side that has multiple leaders can hold their two objectives and win a major victory. The onus us now on the single leader side to be the aggressor.

There's just a ton of extra depth now. I can't wait until I have time to play in tournaments again.

[Kramer]

9 hours ago, alghero81 said:

You still have vanilla armies with no additions. Sub-factions are already a big component of list building, either they are too good to pass or you use them thematically and then it does not matter cause then you are not playing competitive. If you play competitive, a value more does not make the difference, but lets people like me enjoying my Ossiarch without knowing that I have to pay the Petrifex “tax” even if I’m not using it cause now all units for a year will be balanced considering they once were Petrifex and in the best scenario some will go down with the winter FAQ.

I get we don’t want to make things more complex, but that would be the quickest solution for who wants to enjoy balanced units without considering that they may be overpowered in a specific build.

That is a fair point. You might have convinced me. 
although it does remain a very intricate choice with lots of interactions. If it’s a free choice on top of your army of something that you take instead of more models, that is a big difference. I’m currently introducing a mate through Ogors.

And that’s so easy now. He picks the units he liked from the previous game. And then we say do you want your mages, guns or monsters to be better. 
Not. Okay do you want your mages to be better. Or more mages. 
 

[japaricio]

27 minutes ago, Kramer said:

That is a fair point. You might have convinced me. 
although it does remain a very intricate choice with lots of interactions. If it’s a free choice on top of your army of something that you take instead of more models, that is a big difference. I’m currently introducing a mate through Ogors.

And that’s so easy now. He picks the units he liked from the previous game. And then we say do you want your mages, guns or monsters to be better. 
Not. Okay do you want your mages to be better. Or more mages. 
 

 

I would say that what the game needs in a long term perspective a global increase of points. We are moving towards a horde playstyle again, and above all, this is the thing that keeps aways new entrys to the game. It would be a fine movement in the competitive environment to have more point updates across the year (online always) and specific ones por subfactions, but the thing we need the most is getting back to the original idea of AoS, a game you need few models to play.

 

[RuneBrush]

20 minutes ago, japaricio said:

I would say that what the game needs in a long term perspective a global increase of points. We are moving towards a horde playstyle again, and above all, this is the thing that keeps aways new entrys to the game. It would be a fine movement in the competitive environment to have more point updates across the year (online always) and specific ones por subfactions, but the thing we need the most is getting back to the original idea of AoS, a game you need few models to play.

Interestingly a global increase in points is one of the things that has just been done in 40k and I wonder if we're going to see this in the next edition of AoS.  This will make games smaller (thus quicker) to play and actually increases the granularity in points which is something I feel we're losing with each set of points changes.  For AoS the challenge is ensuring that you can take that big centrepiece miniature without it dominating the game (personally I like the old percentage based limits on unit types from WHFB 😉)

[alghero81]

We also need for monsters and big models to perform as the scary thing they should be. As it is, hordes are just more cost effective hence the expensive models are mostly left to gather dust, see Ghorgon, Leviadon, etc...

A combination of that and more points would be welcome (aetherwings at 40? 😂)