The Rumour Thread

[Kasper]

11 hours 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.

Agree that the new batteplans + changes to previous ones look really good. Im a bit annoyed that the Forcing the Hand isnt just a straight line, but instead this tetris thing that they removed from many of the other battleplans.

The auxiliary objectives Im less interested in. They will matter in tournaments, but for "normal" play they will have almost no impact.  I cant remember the last time a game ended in a draw.

[woolf]

1 hour 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.

 

Seems to me they are trying to cater for that through the meeting engagement and warcry set-ups ? (not that i have tried them, but tbh, meeting engagement doesnt seem too bad of an idea to balance the game for 1k, in particular with the smaller board size and specific battleplans)

[Kasper]

1 hour 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.

 

Hard disagree here. Many of my games take maybe 2-2,5 hours which I dont find absurd considering AoS is a tabletop tactical wargame that is meant to imitate a giant battle between 2 big armies. Sure games can take much longer, but that is on the players small talking 24/7 (everything takes much longer if you cant multitask and just talk all the time) or simply not knowing their rules properly so they have to look up every little stat on every single unit. Come prepared and things are much easier and smoother.

If you want to play with "just a few models" and have a quick game there is Warcry, Meeting Engagements or in general smaller point sized games. It is also entirely up to you not to make a horde list or play a primarily horde focused army. There are multiple armies with just a handful of models as is.

For new players there are escalation leagues in various GW shops etc. fairly often from my experience, you can do start collector vs start collector box, play 500 pts games, meeting engagements etc. etc.

I really dont get the need to force this down the throat of everyone wanting to play the 2.000 pts game version. I really enjoy AoS as is.

[KingBrodd]

This weeks Rumour Engine is almost definitely 40K.

[Sonnenspeer]

38 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

This weeks Rumour Engine is almost definitely 40K.

Yup, Primaris Lieutenant with Skitarii Radium Pistol

[KingBrodd]

Warhammer Community Podcast discusses the GHB 2020.

 

[swarmofseals]

5 hours ago, Kasper said:

Agree that the new batteplans + changes to previous ones look really good. Im a bit annoyed that the Forcing the Hand isnt just a straight line, but instead this tetris thing that they removed from many of the other battleplans.

The auxiliary objectives Im less interested in. They will matter in tournaments, but for "normal" play they will have almost no impact.  I cant remember the last time a game ended in a draw.

If you have a consistent regular opponent you can easily adapt the tournament rules to your house games. Just keep a running track of the score over time including points for auxiliary objectives with a rule that you can't choose an auxiliary a second time until you've already used them all once (or all but three).

Same method can be used for league based club play, just takes a bit of overhead.

[mojojojo101]

8 hours ago, Kasper said:

Hard disagree here. Many of my games take maybe 2-2,5 hours which I dont find absurd considering AoS is a tabletop tactical wargame that is meant to imitate a giant battle between 2 big armies. Sure games can take much longer, but that is on the players small talking 24/7 (everything takes much longer if you cant multitask and just talk all the time) or simply not knowing their rules properly so they have to look up every little stat on every single unit. Come prepared and things are much easier and smoother.

If you want to play with "just a few models" and have a quick game there is Warcry, Meeting Engagements or in general smaller point sized games. It is also entirely up to you not to make a horde list or play a primarily horde focused army. There are multiple armies with just a handful of models as is.

For new players there are escalation leagues in various GW shops etc. fairly often from my experience, you can do start collector vs start collector box, play 500 pts games, meeting engagements etc. etc.

I really dont get the need to force this down the throat of everyone wanting to play the 2.000 pts game version. I really enjoy AoS as is.

I'd like to sew some pretty hefty point increases and it definitely has nothing to do with game length it has to do with narrative dissonance.

For me a lot of armies in the game are getting to a point where the narrative and lore doesn't match what is seen on the board. Stormcast are the most obvious example because even Liberators are supposed to be elite troops and yet they are 90 points for 5 and the only real use for them is pathetic meatshields who are only in my army because they have to be. Varanguard are another good example. Making them cheaper sure might make them playable but it kind of undermines what they are; the absolute elite of Chaos mortal forces.

I just think we are getting close to points being a bit of a race to the bottom. I'd prefer to see GW take a more meaningful approach to balance than just constantly reducing points over and over again.

[Kasper]

10 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

I'd like to sew some pretty hefty point increases and it definitely has nothing to do with game length it has to do with narrative dissonance.

For me a lot of armies in the game are getting to a point where the narrative and lore doesn't match what is seen on the board. Stormcast are the most obvious example because even Liberators are supposed to be elite troops and yet they are 90 points for 5 and the only real use for them is pathetic meatshields who are only in my army because they have to be. Varanguard are another good example. Making them cheaper sure might make them playable but it kind of undermines what they are; the absolute elite of Chaos mortal forces.

I just think we are getting close to points being a bit of a race to the bottom. I'd prefer to see GW take a more meaningful approach to balance than just constantly reducing points over and over again.

What? If you did a flat 25% point increase to everything this wouldnt change any of your issues at all. The only thing that can fix those things are re-writing the warscrolls which would make the units worth their weight. Atm they arent re-writing the warscrolls, so the only thing they can do is drop the points to make them semi OK.

[Mutton]

A couple of different suggestions on making non-horde units more viable for winning objective-based battle plans (aside from rewriting warscrolls).

1) A cap on the number of models that count towards capturing an objective. For instance, you could say, a maximum of 10 models count towards capturing an objective. This would create more situations where smaller numbered units can contest hordes.
2) You could say that an objective can't be captured if it has any enemy models also in range (I've never liked the idea that even though we have dudes still fighting, you have one or two more dudes, therefore you "capture" the point).
3) Monsters count as 5 models (This would lift up their usefulness and wouldn't step on Mawtribes' toes).
4) Count units instead of models in range.

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, mojojojo101 said:

I'd like to sew some pretty hefty point increases and it definitely has nothing to do with game length it has to do with narrative dissonance.

For me a lot of armies in the game are getting to a point where the narrative and lore doesn't match what is seen on the board. Stormcast are the most obvious example because even Liberators are supposed to be elite troops and yet they are 90 points for 5 and the only real use for them is pathetic meatshields who are only in my army because they have to be. Varanguard are another good example. Making them cheaper sure might make them playable but it kind of undermines what they are; the absolute elite of Chaos mortal forces.

I just think we are getting close to points being a bit of a race to the bottom. I'd prefer to see GW take a more meaningful approach to balance than just constantly reducing points over and over again.

Why does points spent infer status to you? What's a good example of not elite for you? 

 

40 minutes ago, Mutton said:

A couple of different suggestions on making non-horde units more viable for winning objective-based battle plans (aside from rewriting warscrolls).

1) A cap on the number of models that count towards capturing an objective. For instance, you could say, a maximum of 10 models count towards capturing an objective. This would create more situations where smaller numbered units can contest hordes.
2) You could say that an objective can't be captured if it has any enemy models also in range (I've never liked the idea that even though we have dudes still fighting, you have one or two more dudes, therefore you "capture" the point).
3) Monsters count as 5 models (This would lift up their usefulness and wouldn't step on Mawtribes' toes).
4) Count units instead of models in range.

Not that I agree with the position that Hordes are dominant, but I'll take the argument seriously

1) This is already in the rules, and what is better is that as the player you can influence how many models can score with the position of your models

2) This benefits hordes not elite units, right now you simply have to outnumber with elite units, this means you need to kill all the horde models  as the elite player

3) We've done this where it matters, but having enough bodies for the objective game is a balancing act that all armies should have to address, or the only factor worth considering is how much damage you can force through a 4+ save

4) Again we in affect do this already, because it is total models, and limited space to fit models in. Which is why big bases actually have some utility

[KingBrodd]

Fingers crossed after this weekend with the Indomitus release we start seeing some AOS articles about the upcoming Warbands in August.

[Tiger]

Wade has become my favourite WHC person.

[zamerion]

1 hour ago, KingBrodd said:

Fingers crossed after this weekend with the Indomitus release we start seeing some AOS articles about the upcoming Warbands in August.

warbands for warcry Or have I missed something?

[MaatithoftheBrand]

8 minutes ago, zamerion said:

warbands for warcry Or have I missed something?

Warhammer Underworlds warbands - the Ironjawz and the Daughters of Khaine

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/16/warhammer-underworlds-the-2020-road-map/

[Quasistellar]

1 hour ago, KingBrodd said:

Fingers crossed after this weekend with the Indomitus release we start seeing some AOS articles about the upcoming Warbands in August.

That or Sons of Behamut

[KingBrodd]

1 hour ago, zamerion said:

warbands for warcry Or have I missed something?

Warhammer Underworlds.

1 hour ago, Quasistellar said:

That or Sons of Behamut

I'm trying not to excite myself with the thought!! I'm telling myself they're releasing in September just in case but if they release in August I'll be so ****** happy.

[Popisdead]

On 7/20/2020 at 11:59 PM, RuneBrush said:

 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 😉)

This would be terrible for Slaanesh.  Rules blankets like this tend to cause disastrous results being it's a nostalgia idea .  It is probably healthy to leave 25 year old rules in the past.

21 hours ago, Mutton said:

A couple of different suggestions on making non-horde units more viable for winning objective-based battle plans (aside from rewriting warscrolls).

1) A cap on the number of models that count towards capturing an objective. For instance, you could say, a maximum of 10 models count towards capturing an objective. This would create more situations where smaller numbered units can contest hordes.

3) Monsters count as 5 models (This would lift up their usefulness and wouldn't step on Mawtribes' toes).
4) Count units instead of models in range.

1) - 25 vs 32 vs 40 mm bases would be an issue then.  Particularly for say, Maggotkin with Blight Kings being on 40 mm.  It would nullify Beasts of Chaos completely.  (oh your ungors don't matter now which is half of what's good in that book).

3) I dont' want unit strength to return and I don't see adding odd rules benefitting game play.  This is why the Triumph table being simplified is good.  Remove extraneous rules.

4) now punishing elite armies.  

 

[Mutton]

3 hours ago, Popisdead said:

1) - 25 vs 32 vs 40 mm bases would be an issue then.  Particularly for say, Maggotkin with Blight Kings being on 40 mm.  It would nullify Beasts of Chaos completely.  (oh your ungors don't matter now which is half of what's good in that book).

3) I dont' want unit strength to return and I don't see adding odd rules benefitting game play.  This is why the Triumph table being simplified is good.  Remove extraneous rules.

4) now punishing elite armies.  

1) This doesn't change anything about bases, except it gives larger bases more of a chance to hold an objective. Currently, it's so easy to pile in 30 25mm dudes onto an objective and automatically hold it for 1-2 turns, even if you have say, 10 32mm guys on there. It only helps larger based models (which already need the help due to the inherent detriment of being on large bases, such as weapon range and model pile-in).

3) Unit strength already exists in the game. Battleplans and Mawtribes already do this. Saying "Monsters count as 5 guys" is no different than saying "Mawtribes monsters count as 10 guys." I'm not sure how this can be considered a complicated, "extraneous" rule. Non-hero monsters already suck in this game, and this is a way to give them some kind of holding power on objectives. Otherwise, we continue to run into the situation where an enormous Ghorgon is sitting on an objective, but oh no, two goblins are there too, so I guess the goblins get it.

4) What? How exactly? Counting units instead of models actually HELPS elite armies. As said before, it means giant hordes of 30 models can't rush in and stand on an objective forever. It means elite armies, which tend to have smaller sized units, but more of them, can compete. The game already benefits hordes in many ways, from model count on objectives to warscroll bonuses and max-sized point discounts. Counting whole units as one brings hordes back down to everyone else's level for winning games.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Mutton

[Neverchosen]

I doubt that this would provide an adequate solution, but I have always wanted to see if a rule about counting half a models wounds (rounding down to a minimum of one) would help with objective control. So a two or three wound model would have the same value of other one wound infantry models. Most elite armies have access to multi-wound units so it would help their armies without making their average one to two wound battleline troops over powered. It would still give hordes a strategic advantage, but it would also make certain cavalry and monster units more effective at contesting objectives. Maybe degenerating profiles would come into effect as well for larger monsters?

The issue is that the rule is not very intuitive and would bring up a lot of potential debates and further FAQs. For example how would this apply to items, sub-factions, upgrades and spells that gave units access to additional wounds? Also it might be very easy to abuse such a rule in ways I have not considered.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Neverchosen

[LuminethMage]

9 hours ago, KingBrodd said:

Warhammer Underworlds.

I'm trying not to excite myself with the thought!! I'm telling myself they're releasing in September just in case but if they release in August I'll be so ****** happy.

It sadly looks like you are telling yourself the right thing there ... . Of course it's not impossible that they release SoB before the rest of the Lumineth, but it seems really unlikely. 

[Kramer]

Its probably because I’m a bit contrarian and love red as a color... but if they had shown these models for the lumineth marketing I might have been sold. 
gorgeous😍

[RuneBrush]

14 hours ago, Popisdead said:

This would be terrible for Slaanesh.  Rules blankets like this tend to cause disastrous results being it's a nostalgia idea .  It is probably healthy to leave 25 year old rules in the past.

I wasn't suggesting we bring it back.  The point I was sort of making was that the percentage system did help to prevent the issues you can on occasion get with games at small points where people bring the most powerful unit possible and dominate a game.  AoS is a different beast to WHFB so the old system certainly wouldn't work verbatim - but I do think that small games would benefit from something a little better than what we currently have.

[KingBrodd]

5 hours ago, LuminethMage said:

It sadly looks like you are telling yourself the right thing there ... . Of course it's not impossible that they release SoB before the rest of the Lumineth, but it seems really unlikely. 

I really want the rest of the Lumineth to drop as well for all you Aelven players. I cannot wait to see what people do with the Mountain Spirits.

[LuminethMage]

2 hours ago, Kramer said:

Its probably because I’m a bit contrarian and love red as a color... but if they had shown these models for the lumineth marketing I might have been sold. 
gorgeous😍

Yeah they look great.

I think you'll see red, orange, white and gold as the official scheme when/if we get the Tyrionic part of the army. They stayed pretty close to old Teclis model colors (even down to the yellow half moon on the helmet) this time. It's likely they'd do something similar.