The Rumour Thread

[Ahlambra]

In the video he mentions a possible generic equivalent to Battalions (ex: 1 Hero, 3 Battleline). Wouldn't that mean you just see them all the time anyway? Or is the point more about normalizing what units benefit from Battalion abilities rather than reducing how often you see them? I don't really know the game well enough to get the difference.

[Feii]

Just now, Ahlambra said:

In the video he mentions a possible generic equivalent to Battalions (ex: 1 Hero, 3 Battleline). Wouldn't that mean you just see them all the time anyway? Or is the point more about normalizing what units benefit from Battalion abilities rather than reducing how often you see them? I don't really know the game well enough to get the difference.

it fixes that they cannot balance battalions. SCE have 20 of them and all are meh. 

[Enoby]

59 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

 

Ok, this guy leaked the SoB and the Lumineth too...

Not sure how I feel about these changes if they're correct. 

**spoilers**

Battalions being removed in marched play takes a lot of flavour out of list building. These generic battalions could be cool, but will likely work for some armies better than others. For example, if a combat battalion gave rr1s to hit, it could be great for a unit without access to rerolls, but useless for a faction with them usually built in. Likely battalions will be taken for low drops and an extra cp and artefact rather than interesting abilities which is my least favourite part about them.

Charge reactions sound interesting, as do capping buffs as it will hopefully make the game less killy. But it does nothing to impact shooting or magic which is what people don't like at the moment. In fact, it does impact them by making them stronger. The -1 to hit will also have no effect on MWs on ummodified hits to shooting. 

If these are the only changes, it's disappointing that bravery wasn't touched. 

I understand we have to wait and see everything and there could be loads more changes, but of the ones we've seen in a vacuum, I don't care for them - they don't seem to fully help the issues that AoS currently faces, and in some cases make them worse

[Ahlambra]

3 minutes ago, Dreddships said:

The 'no stacking buffs/one buff at a time' seems like it'll cripple combos though?

I think 40k did this with 9th Edition too. Maybe it's also an attempt to make more Artifacts viable without having to change each individual item? Like in Misthavn, your Dreadlord general could take Shadowsilk Armour and skip the Tyrant Shield for more damage or take the shield and grab a different Artifact. Unless you still wanted both to offset a debuff or something.

[Marcvs]

2 minutes ago, Ahlambra said:

In the video he mentions a possible generic equivalent to Battalions (ex: 1 Hero, 3 Battleline). Wouldn't that mean you just see them all the time anyway? Or is the point more about normalizing what units benefit from Battalion abilities rather than reducing how often you see them? I don't really know the game well enough to get the difference.

these "battalions" might simply be a way to build your list and just provide the "new command points" (sort of like you build your list in 40k)

 

 

[Ahlambra]

5 minutes ago, Feii said:

it fixes that they cannot balance battalions. SCE have 20 of them and all are meh. 

Fair enough, I haven't looked at SCE much. I'll admit of the armies I'm interested in I think there's been at least 1 Battalion in each I liked on paper (except poor Misthavn).

[Feii]

2 minutes ago, Ahlambra said:

I think 40k did this with 9th Edition too. Maybe it's also an attempt to make more Artifacts viable without having to change each individual item? Like in Misthavn, your Dreadlord general could take Shadowsilk Armour and skip the Tyrant Shield for more damage or take the shield and grab a different Artifact. Unless you still wanted both to offset a debuff or something.

you can stack things as much as you want but modifiers are capped at +1 and -1. It doesnt prevent you from using several rules on one guy. 

[Ahlambra]

1 minute ago, Marcvs said:

these "battalions" might simply be a way to build your list and just provide the "new command points" (sort of like you build your list in 40k)

 

 

Ah okay, so more like 40k Detachments then, yeah maybe.

[Dreddships]

2 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

these "battalions" might simply be a way to build your list and just provide the "new command points" (sort of like you build your list in 40k)

I guess thats a way to fix the 'OBR conundrum' - how do you add Command Points to an army that doesnt use them.

I'm disappointed if it does just end up as 40k detachments of 'take 1 x, y and z' but I imagine thats easier to balance around than 'ugh take a leader and a battleline tax and have fun with the rest'

[Ahlambra]

1 minute ago, Feii said:

you can stack things as much as you want but modifiers are capped at +1 and -1. It doesnt prevent you from using several rules on one guy. 

Yeah, I meant more that with the capped rule, it might make other Weapons or Artifacts viable. Before, I'd have a hard time not taking both the Tyrant Shield and Shadowsilk Armour for the +2. Now that it's capped at +1 I wouldn't care as much and might try giving him a Crossbow or a different Artifact.

[JackStreicher]

1 minute ago, Ahlambra said:

Yeah, I meant more that with the capped rule, it might make other Weapons or Artifacts viable. Before, I'd have a hard time not taking both the Tyrant Shield and Shadowsilk Armour for the +2. Now that it's capped at +1 I wouldn't care as much and might try giving him a Crossbow or a different Artifact.

I agree.
Yet, concerning the source: I highly doubt anyone with such insider knowledge could spill the AoS3 rules without being drowned in a sea of lawyers. So I doubt it's credibility though most changes sound reasonable

[PrimeElectrid]

21 minutes ago, Dreddships said:

The battalion changes seem pretty funky.

The 'no stacking buffs/one buff at a time' seems like it'll cripple combos though?

It might make more of the 'big' hitters a lot more valuable over stacking buffs across large units.

Being able to stop Shootas in GG from stacking buffs might be enough to make Troggoths a solid option, for example.

Those two seem like they're much more impactful than charge reactions.

EDIT : the only one that seems solid is having a +1 to save. It makes rend much less impactful and handing 40 clanrats a 5+ save seems absolutely crazy?

 

Rend is everywhere anyway so a game wide nerf sounds like a good idea to me.

[Blueraven84]

Everything I hear sounds good.

 

Feel free to send me your armies before you burn them in Youtube video and sky falls as edition changes

[JackStreicher]

10 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Rend is everywhere anyway so a game wide nerf sounds like a good idea to me.

The way it is in 40k rend isn't being restricted iirc
To hit, to wound and armour is restricted to min -1 and max +1

[willange]

Honestly the charge reactions thing sounds cool to me especially in tandem with potential command point changes.

I do dislike basically removing battalions from matched play.  I mean I agree they needed a lot of balance work, but I would have rather seen the rebalance than removal.

[Gaz Taylor]

13 minutes ago, Blueraven84 said:

Feel free to send me your armies before you burn them in Youtube video and sky falls as edition changes

As a mod, I will abuse my power here and call first dibs on them 🤣

 

I liked what I heard and was very surprised as I was expecting some click bait or to be Ric Rolled. But as with all rumours, take it with a pinch of salt. 
 

Also if these are anywhere true, I suspect we will see some sort of announcement soon or a preview from GW

[Enoby]

Actually, I just thought, if they get rid of battalions then BoC can't be taken in God marked armies 

A sad day for my Wendigors...

Edited April 23, 2021 by Enoby

[Siphon]

2 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Actually, I just thought, if they get rid of battalions then BoC can't be taken in God marked armies

The true children of the primordial Chaos need no gods.  

[willange]

I would imagine BoC would "eventually" get some rule update to make something like that work.

[Gaz Taylor]

Just now, willange said:

I would imagine BoC would "eventually" get some rule update to make something like that work.

Or they might release a FAQ or something when the edition drops. 

[Ganigumo]

The best news out of the video is that the priority roll is staying. I know there's a lot of hate for it, but it really does make AoS a more dynamic game, and its something you can actually consider as you make decisions in the game. Even in the video he mentions specifically NOT taking a double turn opportunity to protect yourself from it later in the game.

23 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Not sure how I feel about these changes if they're correct. 

**spoilers**

Battalions being removed in marched play takes a lot of flavour out of list building. These generic battalions could be cool, but will likely work for some armies better than others. For example, if a combat battalion gave rr1s to hit, it could be great for a unit without access to rerolls, but useless for a faction with them usually built in. Likely battalions will be taken for low drops and an extra cp and artefact rather than interesting abilities which is my least favourite part about them.

Charge reactions sound interesting, as do capping buffs as it will hopefully make the game less killy. But it does nothing to impact shooting or magic which is what people don't like at the moment. In fact, it does impact them by making them stronger. The -1 to hit will also have no effect on MWs on ummodified hits to shooting. 

If these are the only changes, it's disappointing that bravery wasn't touched. 

I understand we have to wait and see everything and there could be loads more changes, but of the ones we've seen in a vacuum, I don't care for them - they don't seem to fully help the issues that AoS currently faces, and in some cases make them worse

The charge reaction to fall back is the one I'm most worried about, you can always pile-in after charging but it might end up being very frustrating to play against.

Limiting buffs/debuffs is going to be absolutely crippling for gitz, and probably a few other factions. Although this would explain why exploding hits have become so common lately.

Yeah the battalion change is a bad one IMO. There's a lot more to the game than just striving for balance and ripping out faction specific battalions makes armies less interesting as a whole. Hopefully the "generic" battalions are purely additive, and they don't take away the existing ones. If it's purely additive, and we get a boring generic battalion that ensures everyone can at least take one if they want, it will function similarly to how the old realm artifacts did, boosting up weaker armies with bad battalions and doing nothing for the strong armies with good battalions. Hopefully he just assumed since there were generic ones they were getting rid of the army ones and they actually aren't removed. (we should complain loudly to GW if they are)

The only way to achieve perfect balance is to have a symmetrical game, and far too often game developers fall into a pit of ripping everything unique out of armies/characters/etc. to standardize it (making it more symmetrical) so they can balance it better. (D&D4e is a perfect example of this.) We don't need perfect balance, we just need the power disparity to be in a tolerable range.

[CommissarRotke]

standardizing battalions seems like a good way to prevent powercreep or Battletome battalions feeling worthless. However, a faction-specific touch on top of the generic rule might help them feel more dynamic?

can't think of any atm, but if current battalions have more than one effect it doesn't seem unreasonable. heck, even them adding different keywords (like god-marking BOC) or allowing different battlelines might be enough

[willange]

9 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

The best news out of the video is that the priority roll is staying. I know there's a lot of hate for it, but it really does make AoS a more dynamic game, and its something you can actually consider as you make decisions in the game. Even in the video he mentions specifically NOT taking a double turn opportunity to protect yourself from it later in the game.

The charge reaction to fall back is the one I'm most worried about, you can always pile-in after charging but it might end up being very frustrating to play against.

Limiting buffs/debuffs is going to be absolutely crippling for gitz, and probably a few other factions. Although this would explain why exploding hits have become so common lately.

Yeah the battalion change is a bad one IMO. There's a lot more to the game than just striving for balance and ripping out faction specific battalions makes armies less interesting as a whole. Hopefully the "generic" battalions are purely additive, and they don't take away the existing ones. If it's purely additive, and we get a boring generic battalion that ensures everyone can at least take one if they want, it will function similarly to how the old realm artifacts did, boosting up weaker armies with bad battalions and doing nothing for the strong armies with good battalions. Hopefully he just assumed since there were generic ones they were getting rid of the army ones and they actually aren't removed. (we should complain loudly to GW if they are)

The only way to achieve perfect balance is to have a symmetrical game, and far too often game developers fall into a pit of ripping everything unique out of armies/characters/etc. to standardize it (making it more symmetrical) so they can balance it better. (D&D4e is a perfect example of this.) We don't need perfect balance, we just need the power disparity to be in a tolerable range.

Exactly.  Plus a lot of current list building sort of relies on battalions to a certain extent.  Specifically the unique and flavorful rules of battalions.  

My spider riding grots do much better with some of their battalions (including those introduced in the white dwarf).
My BoC lists rely on desolating beastheard.
Gore Pilgrims is a huge boon to my mortals based Khorne.
I'll feel super silly owning 5 bloodthirsters for Tyrants of Blood without them.  

Again, I get that balance on battalions needed to happen, but a HUGE number of my purchases over the years have been influenced by battalions.  I made those purchases in the knowledge that the battalions (and the units themselves of course) could change, so I'm not opposed to change necessarily.. I'm just concerned that a lot of the things that currently make lists work at all are based in the battalions and it's hard to imagine how certain armies will function without them.

What I really dread is having to wait an entire year or 2 for some of my armies to finally get new books to fix issues introduced in a new edition.  I mean, I own a lot of armies, so I'll just play whatever works best at the time, but waiting on new books to fix armies broken by a new edition is always annoying.

Edited April 23, 2021 by willange

[Jymmy]

I strongly hate the charge reaction rules. The game doesn’t need to give players more reasons to stand out of melee. They were supossed to nerf shooting, not close combat...

[Beliman]

We need to see the whole picture (if this leaks are real and not just rumors).