The Rumour Thread

[silverstu]

18 hours ago, JPjr said:

THE PUMPKIN HEAD!

THE BED SHEETS!

 I’ve waited around 30 years for GW to give me an Ian Miller pumpkin head army.

I AM SHOOKETH

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/08/07/terrifying-touchdowns-from-beyond-the-grave/

That is some lovely halloween sylvaneth there! Very tempting to convert up... I do love a bit of Ian Millar art..

[KingBrodd]

So which Underworlds Warband do you think we will get first this month? Do you think they will drop separately or together? Will tomorrow be the announcement of this first?

Edited August 8, 2020 by KingBrodd

[alghero81]

6 hours ago, Kramer said:

Yeah everybody understands that's what they were intending I assume. But it's a case of being badly worded. And there are a few unclear elements as well.

How far back are the subfactions introduced through White Dwarf valid? Because you decided they are 'more for narrative fluff' but some of those white dwarf subfactions have real play to them. Furthermore, what's even the point of invalidating narrative rules 😂? I don't know anyone that would actually listen to that if they are aiming for a narrative game. It also isn't in line with their own description of narrative play to delete things, because its a friendly playstyle that require you and your opponent to talk how you change the game anyway. 

All in all I think the community pushback is more to do with lazy wording in the FAQ than a real misunderstanding of the intent. 

Also why do you consider the mercenary rules a 'temporary placeholder? What place is it holding, and for what?  

Beliman expressed better than me what I wanted to say. My point is that allegiances don't have points so they should not be invalidated. Battalions have points, so if they don't appear anymore in the next GHB they are not valid any more (obviously this in a strictly "matched play tournament style way").

Mercenary companies were in the Narrative section not in the Matched Play section. They did not invalidate the Mercenaries itself, they removed the points associated to them. You are obviously still free to use them with house rules and use the oldest points recorded. The Mercenary rules published first in the Forbidden Power section are still valid, there's just no more companies with valid points....

I however agree 100% that the answer does not clarify the topic at all. The question is also wrongly worded, because the question asks about rules, while should have asked about point based entities like warscrolls and battalions not published anymore in GHB20. If you do interpret to the letter the answer from that question then you can definitely come to a point where no rules are valid anymore because they are not re-published in the GHB20. Sons of Behamat would then be the first battletome to be usable post GHB20. You can still field an army but you shouldn't use it's allegiance abilities...

Obviously this is not the intent, but indeed it's not clear.

[alghero81]

5 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

So which Warband do you think we will get first this month? Do you think they will drop separately or together? Will tomorrow be the announcement of this first?

For Underworlds? Both. Either tomorrow for pre-order the 15th or next week for pre-order the 22nd. The roadmap published specifically said warbandS plural. And would not make sense to split them in 2 weeks in the same month. What we don't know is about Warcry but I doubt is coming so soon with no preview. I hope to be wrong, but they could do the same and soon announce a roadmap for Warcry with the first warbands in October after few more 40K and the Lumineth/AoS in September.

[sandlemad]

3 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Well... around here GW‘s words are law. Everything that is not allowed for matched play is „untrue“ and people refuse to let you play it... 👌🏻
So now they all can‘t play anything anymore except Lumineth 🤣

I believe this is called “accelerating the contradictions”. You’d hope that this is the sort of thing which would finally break the chains of hyperliteral RAWism from people’s brains but even if it doesn’t, it’s very funny. “Oh you’re playing using an older publication? *sniff* Huh, around here we actually follow the rules...”

[Beliman]

I don't think that we need any RAW vs RAI here. Just follow the common sense.

Do you want to play with your pre-GHB2020 Allegiance rules?

Whatever you answer, It should be the same for all other Allegiances.

[KingBrodd]

2 hours ago, alghero81 said:

For Underworlds? Both. Either tomorrow for pre-order the 15th or next week for pre-order the 22nd. The roadmap published specifically said warbandS plural. And would not make sense to split them in 2 weeks in the same month. What we don't know is about Warcry but I doubt is coming so soon with no preview. I hope to be wrong, but they could do the same and soon announce a roadmap for Warcry with the first warbands in October after few more 40K and the Lumineth/AoS in September.

Sorry yes for Underworlds. I too would hope they drop the same week, it would be such a pain to stretch them out for fans of those Warbands and Factions. 

I'm hoping that in October once the Lumineth and Sons have dropped that GW organise another Online Preview. Seeing as 40K had had 2 exclusively I cant see there being no reason the next is just for AOS. Especially if they havent shown anything from Warhammerfest in May yet. And seeing as how they're going to be about 5 months behind schedule they very well could show things that will pop up next year.

[Mutton]

Give me some kind of Castlevania-themed army and I'll finally be in on Death.

[Gistradagis]

People here discussing where to draw the line with the publications FAQ question as if there was any real confusion unless you go out of your way to create it lol.

They refer to "older rules" because the question is regarding things such as Mercenaries or the realm artefacts, which were introduced in the GHB 19 but not maintained in the GHB 20, which made people wonder if GW just straight up made them illegal or not, to which GW answers through that FAQ with a "well yes, but actually no," very characteristic of them.

Wrath of the Everchosen isn't affected by this because it doesn't precede or substitute any material, simply adds more official stuff. There's no conflict of rules or validity, you people are going nuts over interpreting smth that was never said, implicitly or explicitly.

[Neverchosen]

2 hours ago, Mutton said:

Give me some kind of Castlevania-themed army and I'll finally be in on Death.

Sisters of Slaughter and any other whip wielders will quickly become the new Meta.

[alghero81]

2 hours ago, KingBrodd said:

Especially if they havent shown anything from Warhammerfest in May yet. And seeing as how they're going to be about 5 months behind schedule they very well could show things that will pop up next year.

Warhammer Fest, GenCon, Nova, and not sure how many other preview events not happening I forgot... Yeah there's room for some surprise this Autumn, but not before 40K gets a few codexes out I bet.

[Kramer]

5 hours ago, alghero81 said:

Beliman expressed better than me what I wanted to say. My point is that allegiances don't have points so they should not be invalidated. Battalions have points, so if they don't appear anymore in the next GHB they are not valid any more (obviously this in a strictly "matched play tournament style way").

Yeah I got you. But the FAQ doesn’t talk about things having points or not. Just if it’s an earlier publication. Allegiance abilities not having points is irrelevant. There is no diversification there. It’s just: ‘ no earlier publications’. and whatever they contain, it’s not allowed without your opponents consent according to the answer. Which is why I called it a lazy answer  

But your point about the question also being wrong is spot on.

3 hours ago, Beliman said:

 

I don't think that we need any RAW vs RAI here. Just follow the common sense

 

Common sense is RAI  

but I’m gonna step out of this conversation. I think everybody agrees the wording requires you to make distinctions between what they mean as publications or you have no battletomes to play with. And the conversation has shifted to where and what is excluded from that. 

[KingBrodd]

19 minutes ago, alghero81 said:

Warhammer Fest, GenCon, Nova, and not sure how many other preview events not happening I forgot... Yeah there's room for some surprise this Autumn, but not before 40K gets a few codexes out I bet.

Heres hoping late October early November we see something.

[Beliman]

31 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Common sense is RAI  

but I’m gonna step out of this conversation. I think everybody agrees the wording requires you to make distinctions between what they mean as publications or you have no battletomes to play with. And the conversation has shifted to where and what is excluded from that. 

That's my point... every allegiance out (Lumineth excluded) or every allegiance in. No grey zones. 

Don't know if it counts for something but Cinderfall allowed all allegiance (and two smaller Tournaments too).

[123lac]

On 8/7/2020 at 8:31 PM, RuneBrush said:

Speaking to the AoS design team, at one of the Open Days last year I got the distinct impression that Wrath of the Everchosen was them seeing if the format is popular or not and that we'd likely be seeing more books along this lines as time goes on.

I think the question I have, is what the life expectancy for this style of book is going to be.  Seeing a number of battalions that appeared over the last year have their points pulled in the latest generals handbook would certainly make me more cautious at committing to a series of 6 or 7 books that could have a portion of content invalidated*.  I do feel a little lack of love for things that have been produced in the past or outside of battletomes - forbidden power, white dwarf etc.

* please don't mistake this as me for saying matched play is the only way to play - I (and I'm not on my own) use pitched battle profiles for nearly all of the games I play and would be worried that that running something that's no longer supported could give me or my opponent a raw deal.

TBH I would prefer all campaign books to NOT be applicable to matched play.

It's better for game balance to keep narrative books to narrative play, lest we end up with way too much bloat.

[Kramer]

4 hours ago, 123lac said:

TBH I would prefer all campaign books to NOT be applicable to matched play.

It's better for game balance to keep narrative books to narrative play, lest we end up with way too much bloat.

I disagree. If I think of the last three we had for AoS: malign portents, forbidden powers & wrath of the everchosen. 
two out of three really made the armies without a recent update more interesting. 
Of course malign portents introduced endless spells and artefacts, Which helped armies without a tome be more interesting. 
wrath of the everchosen introduced a lot of allegiance abilities for armies that hasn’t had an update in awhile or weren’t even a thing. Nurgle, Khorne and chaos daemons undecided. A breath of fresh air all around.

forbidden power, and firestorm had less of an arched play impact. Although both added to the game. With the cities abilities and three new endless spells . But both of them really shined in the narrative parts. 

 In the end it’s just another tool for GW to spice things up and offer a small helping hand without having to do a full new battletome. As long  as they do it sensibly. Which is always a worry 😂

[KingBrodd]

I wonder what Mega Gargants from the various Realms will look like? Gargants of Chamon covered in metals, Ghyran with cloaks of Vines and Crowns of thorns, Ghur covered in Skulls, Scars and Tattoos, Shyish flesh stripped to bones and Hysh, Enlightened Gargants wielding Bo Staff and doing Tai chi.

[Joseph Mackay]

Imagine if the faq answer DID actually mean allegiance abilities aren’t valid in matched play..

it’s been my opinion since AoS2 that allegiance abilities are what created the ridiculous imbalances in the game between the different armies, and I personally think the game was much better when they didn’t exist. The only rules you had were what’s on the warscrolls

[Thiagoma]

1 minute ago, Joseph Mackay said:

Imagine if the faq answer DID actually mean allegiance abilities aren’t valid in matched play..

it’s been my opinion since AoS2 that allegiance abilities are what created the ridiculous imbalances in the game between the different armies, and I personally think the game was much better when they didn’t exist. The only rules you had were what’s on the warscrolls

While i agree, it is an impopular idea 🤣

[JackStreicher]

Allegiance Abilities are, imo, what makes a faction interesting.

[Neverchosen]

4 hours ago, KingBrodd said:

I wonder what Mega Gargants from the various Realms will look like? Gargants of Chamon covered in metals, Ghyran with cloaks of Vines and Crowns of thorns, Ghur covered in Skulls, Scars and Tattoos, Shyish flesh stripped to bones and Hysh, Enlightened Gargants wielding Bo Staff and doing Tai chi.

I have been putting a lot of thought into how Mega Gargants would work aesthetically for different armies. One thing I keep wondering is whether or not GW would release specific upgrade sprues to make them fit certain grand alliances. Namely they could release a sprue with a zombified head and torso for Undead or a different sprue with mutant beast-legs and tentacle arms for Chaos and maybe a helmeted head and pauldrons for order. But your suggestion made me realize that doing a sprue for different realms could actually cover those bases and more.

However, I have no clue how well GW upgrade sprues sell and if there would be much interest in this idea at all? I also am worried that this would be very cost prohibitive and untenable for most collectors or even GW. Maybe this could be something that would be of greater interest for forgeworld as I believe they have some upgrade kits for Imperial Knights?

Edited August 9, 2020 by Neverchosen

[elfhead]

While I think army specific upgrade sprees sounds really cool I don't think that will happen. 

Hobbywise this is a great opportunity to customize and convert your allied gargant to fit with your army, using leftover bits and green stuff to create you own unique gargant.

 

[KingBrodd]

2 hours ago, Neverchosen said:

I have been putting a lot of thought into how Mega Gargants would work aesthetically for different armies. One thing I keep wondering is whether or not GW would release specific upgrade sprues to make them fit certain grand alliances. Namely they could release a sprue with a zombified head and torso for Undead or a different sprue with mutant beast-legs and tentacle arms for Chaos and maybe a helmeted head and pauldrons for order. But your suggestion made me realize that doing a sprue for different realms could actually cover those bases and more.

However, I have no clue how well GW upgrade sprues sell and if there would be much interest in this idea at all? I also am worried that this would be very cost prohibitive and untenable for most collectors or even GW. Maybe this could be something that would be of greater interest for forgeworld as I believe they have some upgrade kits for Imperial Knights?

If anyone were to do it, it would be Forgeworld!! Your idea is incredible mate but will ruin me financially haha

1 hour ago, elfhead said:

While I think army specific upgrade sprees sounds really cool I don't think that will happen. 

Hobbywise this is a great opportunity to customize and convert your allied gargant to fit with your army, using leftover bits and green stuff to create you own unique gargant.

 

I cannot wait to see everyones converted Mega Gargants for their armies, this is going to be an incredible release as every single Faction will technically get a new model.

[Matrindur]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/08/09/sunday-preview-return-to-the-underworlds/

 

Beastgrave Warbands next week

[Dawnmane]

15 minutes ago, Matrindur said:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/08/09/sunday-preview-return-to-the-underworlds/

 

Beastgrave Warbands next week

Lovely for Beastgrave but oh my dog it’s been a while for Warcry releases, hasn’t it? And no roadmap either