The Rumour Thread

[Jefferson Skarsnik]

I wouldn't have that much of a problem with stand and shoot coming back but they should make it so that shooting while in combat is either impossible or comes at -1 to hit and/or can only be done in lieu of fighting with melee weapons in the combat phase

[RamsesIII]

I feel like some people are forgetting that Beasts of Chaos already don't follow the chaos gods generally speaking, and that marked gors are considered weak/outcasts by their brethren for surrendering their will to a single chaos god as opposed to bearing their heritage with pride, being "the true children of chaos" as they call it. BoC aren't the chaos gods' disposable pawns anymore.

Which is why I hope that if Kragnos is really the Gorfather (today's picture does make him look a bit more BoC-like tbh), he isn't a part of Destruction and doesn't bring the beastmen with him to that side. It'd be a complete 180º from BoC's entire story and a shame in my opinion, as they're the only chaos faction that actually serves true chaos as opposed to personal, maybe-too-orderly whims of one of the gods. BoC deserve love, yes, but I'd rather it not come at the cost of their current identity.

And on a side note: It'd be cool to see Ghosteater as a playable, official model at some point. Or Morghur, or even Moonclaw if I'm allowed to have unrealistic dreams.

[Nezzhil]

3 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Kragnos and Gordrakk can't coexist in that manner. Gordrakk won't bow to kragnos, which means conflict, which means Gordrakk is dead/defeated which interrupts the entire destruction narrative since it's Gordrakks' "charisma" which is literally the only thing holding the army together. Could Kragnos kill gordrakk and replace him? yes, the writers can do what they want. Is it good storytelling? no.
Gordrakk's entire motivation is to break into Azyr to fight sigmar because nothing else is challenging and Sigmar was a good matchup for Gorkamorka, and for Orcs might makes right and the strongest leads.

 

 

Sigmarite Beastmen sound awesome!

Gordrakk must have a destiny similar to Nagash. The Gordrakk Waaagh is bad for the narrative of the faction as an overpowered Nagash was bad for the Death faction.

One of the things I'm sure is the Siege of Excelsis must be done before the narrative of AoS3 begins. It is bad for a future arc if a siege is a big part of the whole arc. The Siege of Excelsis is part of the Soul Wars, IMHO it would be silly if it is one of the start points of the next edition.

The only point to know is who are the Realms chosen to be the scenarios for this BR. If it is Ghur the Waaagh must be part of it. We don't need to forget that the last BR had 7 participant factions.

[Neverchosen]

I really like the models of 'the Children' they are cool and weird. I think I prefer the plain Keeper but these make a nice alternate sculpt if people want to run them as Keepers or as they are meant to be which is the coolest recent addition to the lore. 

I will say I am glad I didn't bite on Slaanesh as it seems that it is becoming more and more expensive of an army to collect. I can already see a lot of 40k people running this as Fulgrim until the eventual model is released and then using them as Keepers or demon princes. Solid release for an amazing looking faction. Still Lord Kroak and Be'Lakor are the true best new models.

Edited April 19, 2021 by Neverchosen

[BaylorCorvette]

10 minutes ago, Jefferson Skarsnik said:

I wouldn't have that much of a problem with stand and shoot coming back but they should make it so that shooting while in combat is either impossible or comes at -1 to hit and/or can only be done in lieu of fighting with melee weapons in the combat phase

The only thing I don't like is that more and more things in AoS are getting mortals on unmodified 6s To Hit, making minus to hit less important. Yes a minus to hit will still impact things, and a lot on the older armies. But If I charge in with a unit of semi elite Cavalry into a medium sized unit of LRL Archers I might get reduced in strength significantly. I guess I'm just VERY apprehensive of charge reactions. Like others mentioned, this is only going to hurt melee armies more. Now if there was some sort of shooting reactions too, then I would feel a bit better.

[Siphon]

3 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

The only thing I don't like is that more and more things in AoS are getting mortals on unmodified 6s To Hit, making minus to hit less important. Yes a minus to hit will still impact things, and a lot on the older armies. But If I charge in with a unit of semi elite Cavalry into a medium sized unit of LRL Archers I might get reduced in strength significantly. I guess I'm just VERY apprehensive of charge reactions. Like others mentioned, this is only going to hurt melee armies more. Now if there was some sort of shooting reactions too, then I would feel a bit better.

If shooting reactions were a thing, that might be cool.  
 

If your unit is targeted by a shooting attack you can maybe hunker down and get bonus to save or charge into the volley and move d6 inches toward the unit shooting at you.  

[JackStreicher]

38 minutes ago, Cronotekk said:

Yes, a board that pathetically small for a 28mm game which commonly has multiple large centerpieces for side will make the game worse. And part of the rumors state that charge reactions such as overwatch and flee will be added, nerfing melee and buffing shooting even more. I hope these rumors are false because playing a tiny, cluttered board is what killed 9th edition for my group (that and the overly convoluted process to just play a game)

I hope you are aware that the reduced table size is the recommended minimum table size? It‘s completely legal to go bigger in 40K iirc.

Yet I don‘t see why those changes are bad. They‘re just that: changes. I also doubt they‘ll just be a copy and paste of Warhammer Fantasy Rules. You‘ll probably have to pay a CP for those or you‘ll be restricted to one per Battleround.

[zilberfrid]

9 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I hope you are aware that the reduced table size is the recommended minimum table size? It‘s completely legal to go bigger in 40K iirc.

Yet I don‘t see why those changes are bad. They‘re just that: changes. I also doubt they‘ll just be a copy and paste of Warhammer Fantasy Rules. You‘ll probably have to pay a CP for those or you‘ll be restricted to one per Battleround.

Paying CP is bad with CP nerfing armies around and violently unbalanced CP generation. It's more have/have not play.

Also: minimum means that's the tournament, GW store and many non GW store size.

Edited April 19, 2021 by zilberfrid

[Ganigumo]

8 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

Gordrakk must have a destiny similar to Nagash. The Gordrakk Waaagh is bad for the narrative of the faction as an overpowered Nagash was bad for the Death faction.

One of the things I'm sure is the Siege of Excelsis must be done before the narrative of AoS3 begins. It is bad for a future arc if a siege is a big part of the whole arc. The Siege of Excelsis is part of the Soul Wars, IMHO it would be silly if it is one of the start points of the next edition.

The only point to know is who are the Realms chosen to be the scenarios for this BR. If it is Ghur the Waaagh must be part of it. We don't need to forget that the last BR had 7 participant factions.

Yeah I agree about the Gordrakk narrative not being interesting, but the Siege of excelsis isn't part of the soul wars, the soul wars are over as of BR:Teclis and we are transitioning to the next "season". I honestly don't see Gordrakk's Waaagh surviving much past the stomping of excelsis although I think short of something miraculous happening excelsis is doomed.
There's definitely an expiration date on Gordrakk's WAAAGH!!! that won't survive an entire edition, I suspect excelsis will be nothing more than a speedbump, and they'll manage to batter open the gates of azyr before being driven back. 
Destruction is unlike the other factions, and function more like a force of nature. A WAAAGH!! moves like a natural disaster until eventually dissapating, and their worldviews are built around survival of the fittest. The narrative of destruction rising should be like the realms themselves fighting back against those who would seek to tame or destroy them. This is why "Broken Realms" is actually the perfect starting point, because at the breaking point is exactly when destruction will strike.
The narrative of Kragnos will be a mess if it has the destruction stuff in there though, because it will be juggling everything destruction is doing, alongside the kroak/slaanesh stuff that is completely tangential, while also introducing kragnos and fleshing out the new slaanesh characters. There's just too much going on to fit into one book. Kragnos fitting into chaos ties all the narratives together. Plus it's Tzeentch that has taken a special interest in the city of excelsis and not slaanesh (there was even an entire book about it).

There's also a real possibility that our edition will launch like 9th ed 40k, with the initial starter box only being offered temporarily before they release the non limited one (we got indomitus as a limited release, and the command edition as the evergreen one), so a prelude battle for the limited box actually makes a lot of sense.

[Charleston]

34 minutes ago, BaylorCorvette said:

The only thing I don't like is that more and more things in AoS are getting mortals on unmodified 6s To Hit, making minus to hit less important. . .

This adjustment was done for balancing purpose, but not to nerf -1 to hit modifiers but instead to prevent buffing this to rerollable Mortals on a 3+ to hit (Khorne Bloodletters were quite good at this if I recall correctly which led to bloodletter bombs beeing a valid tactic)

Still AoS *is* too killy and the gameplay suffers heavily due to a lack of interaction. Also 2k as common game size allows easily to build lists with critical deathstars which can't be stopped without the propper lever. On 1k-1.25k this is totaly a different game.

I assume that GW R&D knows of this issues and I really hope that they prepared something nice for 3.0. The jump from 1.5 to 2.0 felt like a minor rule adjustment but did huge things for the game, althrough things got a bit sour with ruleflooding.

[Nezzhil]

11 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Yeah I agree about the Gordrakk narrative not being interesting, but the Siege of excelsis isn't part of the soul wars, the soul wars are over as of BR:Teclis and we are transitioning to the next "season". I honestly don't see Gordrakk's Waaagh surviving much past the stomping of excelsis although I think short of something miraculous happening excelsis is doomed.
There's definitely an expiration date on Gordrakk's WAAAGH!!! that won't survive an entire edition, I suspect excelsis will be nothing more than a speedbump, and they'll manage to batter open the gates of azyr before being driven back. 
Destruction is unlike the other factions, and function more like a force of nature. A WAAAGH!! moves like a natural disaster until eventually dissapating, and their worldviews are built around survival of the fittest. The narrative of destruction rising should be like the realms themselves fighting back against those who would seek to tame or destroy them. This is why "Broken Realms" is actually the perfect starting point, because at the breaking point is exactly when destruction will strike.
The narrative of Kragnos will be a mess if it has the destruction stuff in there though, because it will be juggling everything destruction is doing, alongside the kroak/slaanesh stuff that is completely tangential, while also introducing kragnos and fleshing out the new slaanesh characters. There's just too much going on to fit into one book. Kragnos fitting into chaos ties all the narratives together. Plus it's Tzeentch that has taken a special interest in the city of excelsis and not slaanesh (there was even an entire book about it).

There's also a real possibility that our edition will launch like 9th ed 40k, with the initial starter box only being offered temporarily before they release the non limited one (we got indomitus as a limited release, and the command edition as the evergreen one), so a prelude battle for the limited box actually makes a lot of sense.

Glutos & Sigvald were sent to Excelsis in the short story.

 

"Make for the howling lands, where the glimmering spear mirrors past and future."

 

Howling lands = Ghur

Glimmering spear mirrors past and future = Excelsis and the Spear of Mallus. The principal manufacture of Excelsis are the glimmerings, small vident crystals

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Nezzhil

[Ganigumo]

12 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

Glutos & Sigvald were sent to Excelsis in the short story.

Interesting, I didn't get the place referenced when I first read it. I still don't know how they'll fit all of that into a single book though.

[Cronotekk]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

I hope you are aware that the reduced table size is the recommended minimum table size? It‘s completely legal to go bigger in 40K iirc.

Yet I don‘t see why those changes are bad. They‘re just that: changes. I also doubt they‘ll just be a copy and paste of Warhammer Fantasy Rules. You‘ll probably have to pay a CP for those or you‘ll be restricted to one per Battleround.

Minimum means all rules are designed around it. I know that you can modify any aspect of rules, but if you're making that argument then you've admitted that the rules are not good without modification.

[Twisted Firaun]

2 hours ago, BaylorCorvette said:

As a Chicago transplant living in Texas for the better part of 20 years now, it is nice to see this, lol.

Anyways, I'm super curious to see if Kragnos is BoC related or Destruction related. Seems less and less likely to be Kurnothi but still possible I suppose.

Iowa born Chicago raised over here, I feel you brother.

[silverstu]

Kragnos doesn’t look like a happy bear-elk-centaur... it will be interesting what he means to Destruction- I’d love to see him lead some sort of beastly force. 
 

the twins I was not expecting ... lovely models -BR: Kragnos looks like a cracker .. Slaaneshi cultist uprising in excelsis? Hunted down by witch hunters perhaps ... How Kroak fits in I’m not sure - the Spear of Mallus must have something of import to Slaanesh. Do the twins manifest there? 
The New Born featuring so soon  I’m hoping Grungni’s plans are just beyond the release of 3rd Ed. 

[KingBrodd]

3 hours ago, Fyrenn said:

This is why you deserve to be King to all, Gargant and Gor alike.

Why thank you small one. 

[Feii]

2 hours ago, RamsesIII said:

I feel like some people are forgetting that Beasts of Chaos already don't follow the chaos gods generally speaking, and that marked gors are considered weak/outcasts by their brethren for surrendering their will to a single chaos god as opposed to bearing their heritage with pride, being "the true children of chaos" as they call it. BoC aren't the chaos gods' disposable pawns anymore.

Which is why I hope that if Kragnos is really the Gorfather (today's picture does make him look a bit more BoC-like tbh), he isn't a part of Destruction and doesn't bring the beastmen with him to that side. It'd be a complete 180º from BoC's entire story and a shame in my opinion, as they're the only chaos faction that actually serves true chaos as opposed to personal, maybe-too-orderly whims of one of the gods. BoC deserve love, yes, but I'd rather it not come at the cost of their current identity.

And on a side note: It'd be cool to see Ghosteater as a playable, official model at some point. Or Morghur, or even Moonclaw if I'm allowed to have unrealistic dreams.

Who cares? BoC is an extremely unpopular faction for literally decades and several game systems. If it males them a more popular faction with more than 2 and a half players then make them any GA you want just do something with them GW.

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, dekay said:

Nice as they are, it is likely the shortest time period that battletome/codex has been up to date. Slaanesh literally just got the update and just a few months later there are already models not in the book. Cool.

Yeah. I'm really hoping (I know, I know ... hope is the first step on the road to disappointment) that the Slaanesh model of "make a half book at full price, less than a year later, sell the same book again but the time with everything ... oh wait, a few months later sell another book to actually make a complete army ... oh wait ..." does not become the norm. That would go s long way toward freezing my Warhammer gaming evolution at AoS 2.0. I'm not buying the rules for one army 3+ times in a year.

 

That said, nice models.

 

[Clan's Cynic]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

I hope you are aware that the reduced table size is the recommended minimum table size? It‘s completely legal to go bigger in 40K iirc.

The problem is that whilst they're the recommended minimum, the vast majority of groups and tournaments are taking it as gospel that it's the default. 

Hell, other games are actually shrinking their board sizes purely because a lot of mat-makers are refusing to make anything but 4x4 anymore since... 40k is doing it.

Edited April 19, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[Kronos]

It’s nothing fancy, but I brightened up the image to see if there was anything lurking. If it is Kragnos, it turns out he’s a red head...I’m not saying he’s Kurnothi but it very difficult not to draw comparisons.

[RamsesIII]

53 minutes ago, Feii said:

Who cares? BoC is an extremely unpopular faction for literally decades and several game systems. If it males them a more popular faction with more than 2 and a half players then make them any GA you want just do something with them GW.

As a BoC fan I do

Also, changing GA won't make them popular. Lore, models, units and mechanics will, and those can be done without taking them out of chaos. Why make Destruction BoC and undo the majority of their lore when you can just do feral kurnothi with minimal changes? I guess I'm not opposed to a group of Beastmen not being chaos-aligned (like with the tzaangor enlightened story) as it can give them some more depth, but I wouldn't like it becoming the new norm. They fill their own niche within chaos, and they're debatably the most chaos-aligned of all factions (not out of convenience or allegiance to a god, but because they are the true children of chaos).

[Feii]

15 minutes ago, RamsesIII said:

As a BoC fan I do

Also, changing GA won't make them popular. Lore, models, units and mechanics will, and those can be done without taking them out of chaos. Why make Destruction BoC and undo the majority of their lore when you can just do feral kurnothi with minimal changes? I guess I'm not opposed to a group of Beastmen not being chaos-aligned (like with the tzaangor enlightened story) as it can give them some more depth, but I wouldn't like it becoming the new norm. They fill their own niche within chaos, and they're debatably the most chaos-aligned of all factions (not out of convenience or allegiance to a god, but because they are the true children of chaos).

Them being 100% chaos males them probably super boring for many players be it explicit or implicit. 
 

even archaon has this “what of he turns on thise Gods or becomes a God unto itself” moments and him being more flexible as a character makes it so much more interesting than being 100% slave to Chaos.

[KingBrodd]

25 minutes ago, Kronos said:

It’s nothing fancy, but I brightened up the image to see if there was anything lurking. If it is Kragnos, it turns out he’s a red head...I’m not saying he’s Kurnothi but it very difficult not to draw comparisons.

With @Whitefang knowledge of the Destruction alignment I cant help but feel it may very well be Kurnothi and that they are Destruction Aelves!! If so that's amazing for Kurnoth lovers but there will probably need to be a break between Aelf releases for a time.

[Clan's Cynic]

5 hours ago, Nezzhil said:

Gordrakk must have a destiny similar to Nagash. The Gordrakk Waaagh is bad for the narrative of the faction as an overpowered Nagash was bad for the Death faction.

One of the things I'm sure is the Siege of Excelsis must be done before the narrative of AoS3 begins. It is bad for a future arc if a siege is a big part of the whole arc. The Siege of Excelsis is part of the Soul Wars, IMHO it would be silly if it is one of the start points of the next edition.

The only point to know is who are the Realms chosen to be the scenarios for this BR. If it is Ghur the Waaagh must be part of it. We don't need to forget that the last BR had 7 participant factions.

I think the key difference with Gordrakk's Waagghhh is that it's entirely possible and arguably expected that it will fall apart at some part, whether by being defeated, infighting, getting bored and elements wandering off or a mixture of those. The Destruction armies fought themselves as far back as their WHFB incarnations and whilst all of the existing elements worship Gorkamorka it's never been a rule that future armies had to as well.

Contrast that with Death where it's explicitly stated that Nagash can Assume Direct Control over any and all Undead he wishes and thus any new/existing army has to, ultimately, dance to his tune. New Destruction armies can be added in directly opposition to Gordrakk and nothing really has to change, but Death - even if elements have their own goals - have to at least some way be linked to Nagash.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[novakai]

Destruction is kind of the perfect grand alliance where they can be united in one banner some times but also it is loreful when fighting each other on the battlefield. it isn't like two imperium forces fighting each other where often time people spin the narrative as its a training exercise.