The Rumour Thread

[Thomas Lyons]

1 minute ago, wayniac said:

I kinda agree with this, I thought AOS would have moved AWAY from huge blobs of things like WHFB had.

Why?

[Greasygeek]

Man I am really looking forward to see how they are going to boost Nurgle. I am having a hard time winning against a mixed Death player who I meet on a regular and now I can look forward to seeing him bring in even more troops.. It's i hard being loyal to Nurgle faction...

[Furious]

7 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

You'll need to spam FW for Legion of Azgorth updates.

lol

They still haven't rectified the many editorial errors on their initial warscrolls, released what, almost two years ago now? Though I'm sure they're right behind the super important alternate Space Marine shoulder pads. Seven pads for 32 pounds!

[bottle]

I don't think there is going to be a complex allies matrix or anything of that sort. I imagine allying will be allowed across your Grand Alliance.

[Xasz]

1 minute ago, bottle said:

I imagine allying will be allowed across your Grand Alliance.

Most likely not, which is a good thing.

[BURF1]

2 minutes ago, Xasz said:

Most likely not, which is a good thing.

100% not, it says in the points sheet what they can ally with.

[bottle]

7 minutes ago, BURF1 said:

100% not, it says in the points sheet what they can ally with.

Good catch. I overlooked that!

 

Although the example given for Deathlords lists every single subfaction in Death bar 'Beasts of the Grave', and then specifically mentions Terrogiests (suggesting they will get realigned to another sub-faction).

So for Deathlords at least it is Grand Alliance wide. You're probably right that this won't be the case for all.

Edited July 27, 2017 by bottle

[BURF1]

2 minutes ago, bottle said:

Good catch. I overlooked that!

 

Although the example given for Deathlords lists every single subfaction in Death bar 'Beasts of the Grave', and then specifically mentions Terrogiests (suggesting they will get realigned to another sub-faction).

So for Deathlords at least it is Grand Alliance wide. You're probably right that this won't be the case for all.

Terrorgeists aren't beasts from the grave anymore anyway as of the LAST GHB which I only realized thanks to adepticon. Although you can still use those scrolls for open play.

Edited July 27, 2017 by BURF1

[bottle]

I wonder then where the lines will be drawn on who can't ally with who.

From the contents page it looks like general mixed alliance armies are still a thing - I will be sad if they're not as I play mixed Order and don't have a large portion of any one sub-faction (meaning I would be army-less if I had to abide by the allying rules).

[VBS]

27 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Why?

Because the amount of hordes that plagued whfb 8th ed was one of the biggest complains about it. And when AoS dropped, the removal of that aspect was probably one of the most welcomed changes.

If fielding tons&tons of basic minis becomes part of the meta in AoS, I guarantee that a lot of people won't be happy.

[BURF1]

1 hour ago, swarmofseals said:

I'm going to withhold judgment until I see everything, but so far I'm not impressed. The mortarchs are still very inefficient at that points cost, and morghasts are slightly better but still not good. The allegiance abilities and artefacts are exciting, but keep in mind that taking one of those ability packs means not taking the generic death one. Death are already not very competitive right now with likely the best allegiance ability. Shaving a few points off mediocre warscrolls is just not going to make up for the loss of a 5+ or 6+ ward save army wide. While it's possible that Deathless Minions and Ruler of the Night will stay, I think it's very unlikely as it's very hard for any of the new packs to compete with that. 

Basically, if they get rid of Deathless Minions/Ruler of the Night, the entire GA needs something like a 20% cost decrease just to tread water. 

this is a really bad line of thinking that came out a lot with the run up to 8th. These changes are still almost totally in a vacuum, without seeing what the REST of the rules/points changes are making judgement calls is quite a bit silly. Even more so if they add new units in the near future(possibly even in this book as was the case with Sylvaneth). 

 

Like most things in warhammer we won't know for sure what's good/bad for 3-6 months after release and speculation and theorycrafting have to wait until we see the full breadth of what changes. The allies system alone totally turns the meta on it's head. Just think about Kharadron or Sylvaneth with Hurricanum's AND their allegiance abilities.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, VBS said:

 

If fielding tons&tons of basic minis becomes part of the meta in AoS, I guarantee that a lot of people won't be happy.

I would love to field my block of 88 skeletons again.

[Blueraven84]

120 Skellies or so says hi!

[swarmofseals]

57 minutes ago, BURF1 said:

this is a really bad line of thinking that came out a lot with the run up to 8th. These changes are still almost totally in a vacuum, without seeing what the REST of the rules/points changes are making judgement calls is quite a bit silly. Even more so if they add new units in the near future(possibly even in this book as was the case with Sylvaneth). 

 

Like most things in warhammer we won't know for sure what's good/bad for 3-6 months after release and speculation and theorycrafting have to wait until we see the full breadth of what changes. The allies system alone totally turns the meta on it's head. Just think about Kharadron or Sylvaneth with Hurricanum's AND their allegiance abilities.

Yeah, this is exactly why I said "I'm going to withhold judgment until I see everything." That said, I think there is legitimate cause for concern. Death currently has the most broadly powerful allegiance ability, and it's also by far the least competitive Grand Alliance. The new alliance system also stands to give the most benefit to allegiances that have strong allegiance packs but limited rosters. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Death doesn't really stand to benefit much from this at all given that there is basically no (competitive) reason to take a narrower allegiance than Death itself, so the ally system is pretty moot. Meanwhile, other factions stand to benefit. Similarly, because the GA Death allegiance pack is so strong now, the new allegiance packs will need to be just as strong in order to not be a de-facto nerf. 

It's certainly possible that nerfs to other factions, reductions in points costs for death, release of new units etc. will balance things out (hence why I'm withholding judgment). I'd also say that these new allegiance packs and the alliance system are a solid hit flavorwise. But from a competitive standpoint I really do think there is cause for concern. It's why I'm not really excited by what I saw today. What I saw today makes me nervous about Death falling further behind. Is it a guarantee that will happen? Absolutely not! But as far as building hype, for me it fell very flat. I'm still super stoked for GHB2, but that was tempered a bit today.

[daedalus81]

1 hour ago, VBS said:

Because the amount of hordes that plagued whfb 8th ed was one of the biggest complains about it. And when AoS dropped, the removal of that aspect was probably one of the most welcomed changes.

If fielding tons&tons of basic minis becomes part of the meta in AoS, I guarantee that a lot of people won't be happy.

I don't recall that at all.  I do remember people not adapting well to it and calling it a sales tactic, but near the end it was monstrous cav or bust.

[BobbyB]

Yeah as soon as I saw that there would be new allegiances I was concerned that death would suffer, it's going to have to be something pretty good to be able to compete with the death save, but this is new gw and I think it's fair to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as accounting for that goes and so I'll definitely be waiting to see how it all shakes out

[shinros]

3 hours ago, Nico said:

Boom- Nagash 800.

Neferata 400 so Allies!

 

Yet mannfred is 420. Yup feel pretty great right now. >_> Fears being proven right again. 

37 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

Yeah, this is exactly why I said "I'm going to withhold judgment until I see everything." That said, I think there is legitimate cause for concern. Death currently has the most broadly powerful allegiance ability, and it's also by far the least competitive Grand Alliance. The new alliance system also stands to give the most benefit to allegiances that have strong allegiance packs but limited rosters. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Death doesn't really stand to benefit much from this at all given that there is basically no (competitive) reason to take a narrower allegiance than Death itself, so the ally system is pretty moot. Meanwhile, other factions stand to benefit. Similarly, because the GA Death allegiance pack is so strong now, the new allegiance packs will need to be just as strong in order to not be a de-facto nerf. 

It's certainly possible that nerfs to other factions, reductions in points costs for death, release of new units etc. will balance things out (hence why I'm withholding judgment). I'd also say that these new allegiance packs and the alliance system are a solid hit flavorwise. But from a competitive standpoint I really do think there is cause for concern. It's why I'm not really excited by what I saw today. What I saw today makes me nervous about Death falling further behind. Is it a guarantee that will happen? Absolutely not! But as far as building hype, for me it fell very flat. I'm still super stoked for GHB2, but that was tempered a bit today.

Yup I have the same problems hence I am in stance a deathrattle only book would not help death either if the death GA trait is still the same. Plus mannfred and nagash are screwed over by allies as well so if that deathrattle only book has spells it generally screws over the deathlords. It's still largely inefficient as you said. As specticon said in the death section wake me up when Death get's something of actual substance. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by shinros

[BURF1]

39 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

Yeah, this is exactly why I said "I'm going to withhold judgment until I see everything." That said, I think there is legitimate cause for concern. Death currently has the most broadly powerful allegiance ability, and it's also by far the least competitive Grand Alliance. The new alliance system also stands to give the most benefit to allegiances that have strong allegiance packs but limited rosters. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Death doesn't really stand to benefit much from this at all given that there is basically no (competitive) reason to take a narrower allegiance than Death itself, so the ally system is pretty moot. Meanwhile, other factions stand to benefit. Similarly, because the GA Death allegiance pack is so strong now, the new allegiance packs will need to be just as strong in order to not be a de-facto nerf. 

It's certainly possible that nerfs to other factions, reductions in points costs for death, release of new units etc. will balance things out (hence why I'm withholding judgment). I'd also say that these new allegiance packs and the alliance system are a solid hit flavorwise. But from a competitive standpoint I really do think there is cause for concern. It's why I'm not really excited by what I saw today. What I saw today makes me nervous about Death falling further behind. Is it a guarantee that will happen? Absolutely not! But as far as building hype, for me it fell very flat. I'm still super stoked for GHB2, but that was tempered a bit today.

See ya said that first sentence and then immediately went on judging things.

[Galas]

I love hordes. I don't have plans to paint anymore hordes, I had enough with my greenskins and my marauders and bloodreavers hordes in AoS. But my most favourite unit in warhammer has always been your "Basic joe".

Dragon Princes of Caledor? Chaos Lord on Manticore? Bah! Give me a horde of boar boyz to paint and customize! This is about armies. I hate hero/elite-hammer.

[VBS]

18 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

I don't recall that at all.  I do remember people not adapting well to it and calling it a sales tactic, but near the end it was monstrous cav or bust.

I suppose the perception of each is based on our experiences... so yeah, can't really say which individual opinion over an internet forum is correct.

Whatever 8th really was, it was still a cash grab. Anything involving your unit gets better if you buy more models is by definition a sales tactic since people will be inclined to do so in order to be more efficient with their toys. Quite logical. And there is nothing wrong with that, just a private company trying to make money (outrageous, right? ).

If people think it's a fun concept, good for them. If people want to field 200 skellies in AoS now, most welcome to do so 

[polarbear]

2 minutes ago, VBS said:

I suppose the perception of each is based on our experiences... so yeah, can't really say which individual opinion over an internet forum is correct.

Whatever 8th really was, it was still a cash grab. Anything involving your unit gets better if you buy more models is by definition a sales tactic since people will be inclined to do so in order to be more efficient with their toys. Quite logical. And there is nothing wrong with that, just a private company trying to make money (outrageous, right? ).

If people think it's a fun concept, good for them. If people want to field 200 skellies in AoS now, most welcome to do so 

All the rules are just marketing for the models anyway, so that could apply to anything. I do agree that certain cases are more egregious/seem less justified than others.

I like hordes on my shelf but not without a movement tray in a game.

[swarmofseals]

1 hour ago, BURF1 said:

See ya said that first sentence and then immediately went on judging things.

Passing a final judgment on the entire project and evaluating the information that we have now are not the same thing. Sorry if you can't see that.

[someone2040]

5 hours ago, bottle said:

I wonder then where the lines will be drawn on who can't ally with who.

From the contents page it looks like general mixed alliance armies are still a thing - I will be sad if they're not as I play mixed Order and don't have a large portion of any one sub-faction (meaning I would be army-less if I had to abide by the allying rules).

My guess for allies would be, that in general those who are allies are going to be akin to 'battle brothers', armies that regularly fight in cooperation with each other. So for Free Peoples, I would presume the other human races and probably Stormcast. But not sure if we'll see Duardin or Aelves as 'allies'. 

I don't think Grand Alliance armies are going anywhere. I think they're there to represent when you've got a variety of forces coming to a common cause. While for allies, there's enough critical mass of one particular army, that essentially the force 'operates' like a Dispossessed or Flesh-Eater Courts army, and the allies just go along with the flow letting them be in charge.

For example, if we had a Free Peoples army with some Stormcast allies, my assumption would be that the Free Peoples are essentially in charge, and the Stormcast are only minimal in numbers, been sent by Sigmar to aid the force. On the other hand, if the force was 50/50 Free Peoples/Stormcast, neither force is really in charge, so they operate more as a cooperation of forces rather than one being in charge.

[chord]

please no movement trays....

I typically dislike playing with allegiance abilities, artifacts and traits as I find in most games it just bugs down gameplay as everyone has to try and remember what's going on..

 

[Sleboda]

28 minutes ago, chord said:

please no movement trays....

 

 

I actually still like to use them, as do some of my foes.  The game is perfectly playable with unit on square bases on trays.  You even get to use large units and move them all at once.  It's nifty.