The Rumour Thread

[Beastmaster]

I immediately thought „WoW Blood Elves“. In a good way. 😃

[Kramer]

3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

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.

Do you think it would be possible to balance the game for both a standard value and half that? 
I personally think that’s only possible with something like meeting engagements. Not the previous form, maybe this one, hopefully the next. 

[Souleater]

22 hours ago, zamerion said:

warbands for warcry Or have I missed something?

As well as the Underworlds ladies we have seen a few models from a Khainite Warcry warband.

 

 

[KingBrodd]

5 minutes ago, Souleater said:

As well as the Underworlds ladies we have seen a few models from a Khainite Warcry warband.

 

 

If December is the start of Underworlds Season 4, does that mean that this Warband and other Warcry Warbands be released before then?

[Still-young]

16 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

If December is the start of Underworlds Season 4, does that mean that this Warband and other Warcry Warbands be released before then?

Warcry and Underworlds are different games, so I’d say the release schedule for one doesn’t tell us much about the other. I imagine this warband will be out before December though, just because of how early they previewed it. 

[KingBrodd]

29 minutes ago, Still-young said:

Warcry and Underworlds are different games, so I’d say the release schedule for one doesn’t tell us much about the other. I imagine this warband will be out before December though, just because of how early they previewed it. 

I know they're different games what I meant to say was will their release schedule be a bit of tit for tat, Warcry then Underworlds or a bunch of either at once.

[KingBrodd]

 

Warhammer 40,000 Dark Tide announced today at the Xbox Games Showcase.

[Black_Templar_Lad]

I was so shocked by the Warhammer reveal. I don't think i've ever spammed my group chat more 😂

As soon as I saw the opening shot, I was joking to myself thinking, ah imagine if this was Warhammer or something.

Ha, those are some cool looking marine.....

Hang on, is that blue glow a.....

Holy ****** that's a lasgun! IT'S WARHAMMER!!!

[Still-young]

4 minutes ago, Black_Templar_Lad said:

I was so shocked by the Warhammer reveal. I don't think i've ever spammed my group chat more 😂

As soon as I saw the opening shot, I was joking to myself thinking, ah imagine if this was Warhammer or something.

Ha, those are some cool looking marine.....

Hang on, is that blue glow a.....

Holy ****** that's a lasgun! IT'S WARHAMMER!!!

I did the same haha. When I saw their silhouettes I was like ‘huh, looks like 40k’.

[Kurrilino]

May i ask why this is even posted in a Age of Sigmar Roumor thread?

This is neither a rumor or AOS. 

[Kramer]

1 minute ago, Kurrilino said:

May i ask why this is even posted in a Age of Sigmar Roumor thread?

This is neither a rumor or AOS. 

It’s a funny story though 😅

[KingBrodd]

40 minutes ago, Black_Templar_Lad said:

I was so shocked by the Warhammer reveal. I don't think i've ever spammed my group chat more 😂

As soon as I saw the opening shot, I was joking to myself thinking, ah imagine if this was Warhammer or something.

Ha, those are some cool looking marine.....

Hang on, is that blue glow a.....

Holy ****** that's a lasgun! IT'S WARHAMMER!!!

Literally had the same thought!!

 

30 minutes ago, Kurrilino said:

May i ask why this is even posted in a Age of Sigmar Roumor thread?

This is neither a rumor or AOS. 

Just thought people may like to know, there are probably a few Gamers here and more than a few who also play 40K.

[Gaz Taylor]

10 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

Just thought people may like to know, there are probably a few Gamers here and more than a few who also play 40K.

That may be the case but let’s keep it to Age of Sigmar 😉

[NkfPanda]

1 hour ago, Kurrilino said:

May i ask why this is even posted in a Age of Sigmar Roumor thread?

This is neither a rumor or AOS. 

You may not.

[Neverchosen]

1 hour ago, Kurrilino said:

May i ask why this is even posted in a Age of Sigmar Roumor thread?

This is neither a rumor or AOS. 

I think that this thread often takes on a general news/announcement thread as there is not always a good place to post such things. I have seen this crop up on a number of sites as rumours/leaks/speculation often result in news.  

Returning to actual rumours, with the awesome Weta Workshop army showcased on Warhammer community has there been any recent rumours regarding Kurnothi Aelves? 

[Popisdead]

On 7/22/2020 at 12:23 PM, Mutton said:

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.

 

 

1) 25 mm ungors should be hording on and better at holding the objective than larger base units.  that's part of the mechanic of the game.

3) so make that unique.  Otherwise it's slowly brought back in fully.  A ghorgon shouldn't hold an objective.  Troops should hold ground.  

4) The game doesn't really benefit of Hordes, horde units get a benefit to be beneficial.  

 

I just disagree with the points.  I'm not meaning to attack you, sorry if it feels that way.  Just FYI.  

[Popisdead]

14 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

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.

I think the problem is rose coloured glasses.  Right now units are fairly descent across the board where heroes and monsters become the issues.  

A big issue moving from 5th to 6th was people's armies were invalidated and to a degree that happened in the first GHB with Battle line.  Both cases I recall lizardmen players struggling.  In the 5th to 6th change people could have 5000 points but not play cause they lacked what was chosen as Troops.  IN GHB 1 Saurus Warriors weren't as good as Temple Guard.  

A loose percentage at low tiers is a form of comp that can really mess with things.  And across most armies it can scale bad and weird.  Take for example Path to Glory.  It was a casual game without balance.  That's invariably how smaller games get sorted out.  

I would prefer to see a better set of rules for smaller games.  I think Meeting Engagement was meant for that but maybe poorly executed or seemingly not picked up well?  

It sounds like Crusade for 40k could be a mix of army building, RPG elements and small game playing that would work for smaller games instead.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Popisdead
typo

[Quasistellar]

1 hour ago, Popisdead said:

I think the problem is rose coloured glasses.  Right now units are fairly descent across the board where heroes and monsters become the issues.  

A big issue moving from 5th to 6th was people's armies were invalidated and to a degree that happened in the first GHB with Battle line.  Both cases I recall lizardmen players struggling.  In the 5th to 6th change people could have 5000 points but not play cause they lacked what was chosen as Troops.  IN GHB 1 Saurus Warriors weren't as good as Temple Guard.  

A loose percentage at low tiers is a form of comp that can really mess with things.  And across most armies it can scale bad and weird.  Take for example Path to Glory.  It was a casual game without balance.  That's invariably how smaller games get sorted out.  

I would prefer to see a better set of rules for smaller games.  I think Meeting Engagement was meant for that but maybe poorly executed or seemingly not picked up well?  

It sounds like Crusade for 40k could be a mix of army building, RPG elements and small game playing that would work for smaller games instead.

My issue with meeting engagements is that it creates extra steps and complications, when generally in a smaller match I’m looking for less complexity. 
 

I am hoping the small 40k missions are actually good and that can maybe be a template for small format AoS missions in the future.

[Infernalslayer]

3 hours ago, Popisdead said:

 

 

1) 25 mm ungors should be hording on and better at holding the objective than larger base units.  that's part of the mechanic of the game.

3) so make that unique.  Otherwise it's slowly brought back in fully.  A ghorgon shouldn't hold an objective.  Troops should hold ground.  

4) The game doesn't really benefit of Hordes, horde units get a benefit to be beneficial.  

 

I just disagree with the points.  I'm not meaning to attack you, sorry if it feels that way.  Just FYI.  

I think the problem with most monsters, like a Ghorgon, is not that they can't hold an objective, but that they can't clear horde units (or chaff) either to make way for your troops to go for the objective.

So most (non-hero) monsters are not good for either role other than be cool looking pieces on the table.

[Ogregut]

Bring back thunder stomps. A monster will do X amount of moral wounds to an enemy unit within 1'' at the end of the combat round. 

X depends on wounds suffered by monster. 

That would help big beasties against hordes. 

[Mattrulesok]

I was thinking about this the other day and how I would like to see behemoths and heroes count as their current wound total rather than just 1. This gives both more utility (granted heroes didn't need it) and I think on a fluff level works better, in the same way monsters get weaker as they take more wounds their ability to control a point is diminished by being wounded and logically (or as logical as you can get about a game of lizards on dinosaurs fighting underwater elves etc.) it seems to me my 12 wound thunder lizard bastiladon has more control over an objective than 10 chainrasp however a bastiladon with 1 wound left is clearly out matched by 10 chainrasp, model numbers don't make total sense for controlling points.  If my wife and I are in our loungeroom and an adult tiger gets in you wouldn't say we control the room because we outnumber it right? Facetious I know but it's what makes sense to me

[dirkdragonslayer]

Has anything come up about the Snotling Blood Bowl team release date that I missed? I know it isn't AoS specifically, but I want to use them for some Gloomspite conversions. I need that Pump Wagon in my life.

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Mattrulesok said:

If my wife and I are in our loungeroom and an adult tiger gets in you wouldn't say we control the room because we outnumber it right?

This depends on what is meant by "controlling the room", which is where the objective abstraction becomes a bit tricky to translate into real life. But, for example, if your purpose for being in the lounge room was to turn on the TV, one of you could distract the tiger while the other one grabbed the remote - mission accomplished. That's one way of thinking about what control means in real terms, and it's where numbers are more helpful than individual power.

The tiger doesn't take control of the room off you just by walking in. It takes control by killing both of you. That's how monsters should be taking objectives off hordes. The problem is that most monsters in the game have pretty anaemic stats and can't actually rip through a horde like they should. Making them better at holding objectives doesn't address that problem.

[Kramer]

On 7/22/2020 at 9:23 PM, Mutton said:

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.

Haha for some reason this feels like the wrong example. In my mind claiming an objective needs some intelligence and understanding of the bigger picture. 
of course two grots will be more inclined to try to steal the artefact. One distracting the ghorgon, the other opening a tomb or something. 

i do get the point though, even if I don’t agree fully, maybe a better example would be the celestant prime vs 2 grots. 

[OkayestDM]

3 hours ago, Kadeton said:

. . . the objective abstraction becomes a bit tricky to translate into real life.

This is my problem with objectives in a nutshell. To clarify, I love them from a purely mechanical sense, and how they make the game more than a simple punch-fest, with the most punchiest puncher winning in the end.

The disjoint though is that it often isn't clear what your fighting for and how your models "should" be interacting with it.  If your objective is to control a bridge, then a ghorgon would control that better than any pair of goblins, no matter how clever (unless they can lure the ghorgon "more than 6-inches away," which works thematically and mechanically.)

If, alternatively, the objective you're trying to control is the Tome of Super Deadly Magical Doom, one little goblin clutching that to his chest would be able to hold that over a dozen ghorgons, who wouldn't have the combined brain-power to turn a page.

All of this is definitely overthinking the game mechanics, which are kept vague and simple to avoid three pages of rules for each objective, but it highlights the disparity in perception amongst the players. We can literally interpret an objective to be anything, and there's going to be frustration when it doesn't make sense to us.

Ultimately, my issue with monsters and objectives is that monsters are specifically designed to simulate a unit of models slowly being whittled down (as they take damage,their attacks, damage, and overall effectiveness decreases, just like any unit with multiple models.) They don't take battleshock, but the decrease in damage/movement compensates for that. In every way but one they are a unit represented by a single model. And that one way - obviously- is when it comes to holding objectives. Several people have already suggested that their wounds should count towards their ability to hold an objective, and I largely agree.

Alternatively, if they're not going to become better at holding objectives, lets take away brackets. Let them be one model that is an absolute wrecking ball until they are finally put down. The ability to manipulate your opponent by charging a monster at their lines that they absolutely must deal with quickly and decisively would become a powerful strategy, and while you'd likely still loose them to a powerful shooting army, that turn spent focusing on your monster would be a turn your other troops can get into position. At least in theory.

I'm hoping monsters get a revamp in AoS 3.0 that makes them more viable in general.