The Rumour Thread

[Sorrow]

The only politics I endorse are traditional conservative Slaaneshi values. 

 

[Ogregut]

Did anyone pick up that it seems a unit can't have more than one CA used on it per phase. 

It mentioned how the chaos knights can have the chaos Lords CA used in the hero phase allowing them to have all out defense used in the combat phase. 

[Clan's Cynic]

4 minutes ago, Sorrow said:

The only politics I endorse are traditional conservative Slaaneshi values. 

 

Luv Grimnir
Luv me Lodge
Luv me Ur-Gold

'Ate Chaos
'Ate not bin paid
'ate politics

Simple as.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Just now, Ogregut said:

Did anyone pick up that it seems a unit can't have more than one CA used on it per phase. 

It mentioned how the chaos knights can have the chaos Lords CA used in the hero phase allowing them to have all out defense used in the combat phase. 

Yeah, I saw that. I think that's good, it definitely curbs abuse of Unleash Hell in one way (one unit can't benefit form it twice). Let's see if they handle commands like spells, too, in that you can only give a unique command once per phase. If that is the case, I think Unleash Hell is managable.

[Yoid]

1 minute ago, Ogregut said:

Did anyone pick up that it seems a unit can't have more than one CA used on it per phase. 

It mentioned how the chaos knights can have the chaos Lords CA used in the hero phase allowing them to have all out defense used in the combat phase. 

That is cool actually. It is questionable how can you possibly command your troops to "all out defense" and "all out attack" at the same time without breaking the physical rules of space and time.

[Neverchosen]

19 minutes ago, PainfullyMediocre said:

Generic monsters would be sweet.  While i'd like more Kruleboys stuff for my future army, i'd love to see modern GW sculpting a Dragon type creature.

Wanting to get back on to the topic of rumours. There is a type of creature that is not currently present in Warhammer and I deeply want to see represented as a neutral beast. Where are my Unicorns at?


A rare magical creature that is not simply a horse with a horn, but a creature with the beard of a goat, body of a horse the tail of a lion and cloven hooves would look really cool. Although many medieval depictions made them smaller than horses I would love to see an elegant creature in the scale of a Mindstealer Sphrianx. It could be a fast creature that has magical abilities. But I think the most interesting thing about unicorn's is that they are often portrayed as divine creatures whose lives are sacred. I keep thinking how amazing it would be to have a mystical creature whose death could demoralize it's opponents. I think that maybe the army that slays the Unicorn will have a de-buff to it's bravery as the army questions their resolve. If an army somehow one the favour of a unicorn and saw it fall in battle maybe their resolve will double and they will get a buff to bravery.

It would be a unique presence on the battlefield and it would become the centre of many memorable narratives. I think that it would be a weak unit in combat but with an amazing impact on the battlefield.

Either way a dragon and a wild unicorn would both be instant purchases for me. But since I am likely to get a small Stormcast force thanks to dominion I will be able to run a Stardrake just leaving a unicorn shaped hole in my collection.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Neverchosen

[JustAsPlanned]

1 minute ago, Neverchosen said:

Wanting to get back on to the topic of rumours. There is a type of creature that is not currently present in Warhammer and I deeply want to see represented as a neutral beast. Where are my Unicorns at?


A rare magical creature that is not simply a horse with a horn, but a creature with the beard of a goat, body of a horse the tail of a lion and cloven hooves would look really cool. Although many medieval depictions made them smaller than horses I would love to see an elegant creature in the scale of a Mindstealer Sphrianx. It could be a fast creature that has magical abilities. But I think the most interesting thing about unicorn's is that they are often portrayed as divine creatures whose lives are sacred. I keep thinking how amazing it would be to have a mystical creature whose death could demoralize it's opponents. I think that maybe the army that slays the Unicorn will have a de-buff to it's bravery as the army questions their resolve. 

It would be a unique presence on the battlefield and it would become the centre of many memorable narratives. I think that it would be a weak unit in combat but with an amazing impact on the battlefield. 

I swear the Wood Elves used to ride them. Maybe they’ll come with the rumoured WElf tome?

[HorticulusTGA]

2 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

Wanting to get back on to the topic of rumours. There is a type of creature that is not currently present in Warhammer and I deeply want to see represented as a neutral beast. Where are my Unicorns at?

 

[Enoby]

Something I am wondering, with AoS rules seemingly becoming much more complex, will the rules remain free? 

I think 40k had a free leaflet, but I can't really remember details. And I'm going to assume that things like monster rules aren't going to be included? I'm definitely going to create an A4 page of these abilities so I don't need to take the book around.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Enoby

[Neverchosen]

4 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Something I am wondering, with AoS rules seemingly becoming much more complex, will the rules remain free? 

I think 40k had a free leaflet, but I can't really remember details. And I'm going to assume that things like monster rules aren't going to be included? I'm definitely going to create an A4 page of these abilities so I don't need to take the book around.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lw4o3USx1R8sU7cQ.pdf

The core rules for 40k are still available online. I think that AOS can expect the same, and they have shared a number of Warscrolls already.

I think that GW is still banking on AOS being more accessible in hopes of winning over some 40k players while also functioning as a gateway for newer players.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Neverchosen

[Ogregut]

1 minute ago, Enoby said:

Something I am wondering, with AoS rules seemingly becoming much more complex, will the rules remain free? 

I think 40k had a free leaflet, but I can't really remember details. And I'm going to assume that things like monster rules aren't going to be included? I'm definitely going to create an A4 page of these abilities so I don't need to take the book around.

My guess is the core, bare bones will be free. As in how to move, shoot, charge, fight in combat and his to resolve battleshock. 

More advance stuff like the monster rampage, heroic actions, endless spells etc won't be included with the free rules. 

Do enough to get you paying but if you want the full experience you'll need to buy the rules. 

[edmc78]

22 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

This is the last comment I will be making on this, in an effort to keep the thread on topic.

But please do me the favour and read what I write without assuming I have not thought through my position or believe things that are obviously absurd to after a moment of reflection. Also, please don't assume that I am OMFG OFFENDED at the mention of a topic I don't like or want to shut down GW or whatever.

While the world of Age of Sigmar is obviously not the real world, the writers who shape that world and the readers that consume their writing do exist in the real world. So it's not like writing a piece of fiction that endorses colonialism or imperialism (which I am emphatically not claiming GW is doing) is automatically ethically unproblematic because it is fiction. That's making things too easy for yourself. I don't think it should be disputed that fiction is a good way to explore certain ideas and for people to connect with them in ways that considering these ideas dispassionately would not allow.

That is why when certain themes that are ethically dubious in the real world appear in fiction, an appropriate amount of care needs to be taken to present them critically and with a certain amount of respect of the subject matter. And readers have a responsibility of engaging with them critically. Stories are a way for us to try out ideas, and if our story allows people to try out the idea that "colonialism can be good, actually" (again, not claiming this is happening at GW right now), then that demand a certain level of care on the part of the authors.

For this reason, I made the comment that I hope the issue is handled with the appropriate amount of respect, both by the writers and by us, when we engage with the fiction that is presented by GW. I already said that there is no problem with writing about things that would not be ethically sound in the real world or with enjoying such fiction, when done in the appropriate way. Literally all that is needed is the acknowledgment that something like a Dawnbringer Crusade would very likely be quite dubious, morally, if it occured in reality, and a bit of thinking about what makes such a concept still enjoyable in fiction.

So do you rail on 40k for Lost Crusade or Indomitous Crusade? 

The article noted that those loosing a coin may get hanged, so we can say the Dawnbringer Crusades are morally dubious, as is all of the Warhammer fiction and trope since the 1980’s. That is not a defence, but it should not invalidate is existence and invite instant censorship.

There are better battles to fight when it comes to championing inclusivity. 
 

 

[Yoid]

1 minute ago, Ogregut said:

My guess is the core, bare bones will be free. As in how to move, shoot, charge, fight in combat and his to resolve battleshock. 

More advance stuff like the monster rampage, heroic actions, endless spells etc won't be included with the free rules. 

Do enough to get you paying but if you want the full experience you'll need to buy the rules. 

I think everythink basic is gonna be free. It seems like a lot now but really is gonna be small once packed. Monstrous Rampages are that 4 abilities chart and will go in the charge phase section. Hero Actions the same in the hero phase section. The free rules usually cover everything but matched play stuff, so only thing I see being out is the core battalions.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

4 minutes ago, edmc78 said:

So do you rail on 40k for Lost Crusade or Indomitous Crusade? 

The article noted that those loosing a coin may get hanged, so we can say the Dawnbringer Crusades are morally dubious, as is all of the Warhammer fiction and trope since the 1980’s. That is not a defence, but it should not invalidate is existence and invite instant censorship.

There are better battles to fight when it comes to championing inclusivity. 

I don't rail on anything, but view 40k crusades as or more critically than the one from the latest teaser, because I get the impression that the fact that crusades are not actually generally thought of as good is lost on 40k fans fairly frequently, and even the writers occasionally.

Also did not mention inclusivity once. That was not a major point of any of my posts.

EDIT: Actually, sorry about engaging with this conversation again. I said I would stop before. My bad.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[sandlemad]

8 minutes ago, edmc78 said:

So do you rail on 40k for Lost Crusade or Indomitous Crusade? 

The article noted that those loosing a coin may get hanged, so we can say the Dawnbringer Crusades are morally dubious, as is all of the Warhammer fiction and trope since the 1980’s. That is not a defence, but it should not invalidate is existence and invite instant censorship.

There are better battles to fight when it comes to championing inclusivity.

You're the only person to even mention 'instant censorship' and 'inclusivity' though. No one's said anything about existence being invalidated either?

Agreed that the bit about the coin may be a sign pointing towards something more interesting and complicated when this gets fleshed out though. Fingers crossed!

Edited June 9, 2021 by sandlemad

[CommissarRotke]

3 hours ago, Arzalyn said:

- Pile In: Models no longer need to pile in towards the nearest enemy modely. "The new wording is: When you make a pile-in move with a model, it must finish the move no further from the nearest enemy unit than it was at the start of the move." As such you can move around the edge of a unit when piling in.

I can't really parse this sorry can someone explain how it's different than current pile-in rules?

[mojojojo101]

7 minutes ago, Ogregut said:

My guess is the core, bare bones will be free. As in how to move, shoot, charge, fight in combat and his to resolve battleshock. 

More advance stuff like the monster rampage, heroic actions, endless spells etc won't be included with the free rules. 

Do enough to get you paying but if you want the full experience you'll need to buy the rules. 

I mean we are kinda in that situation already.

The core rules are free but the GHB isn't and while you don't NEED it, you kinda do.

Also, pretty sure Malign Sorcery rules are only printed in that box at the moment?

[edmc78]

5 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't rail on anything, but view 40k crusades as or more critically than the one from the latest teaser, because I get the impression that the fact that crusades are not actually generally thought of as good is lost on 40k fans fairly frequently, and even the writers occasionally.

Also did not mention inclusivity once. That was not a major point of any of my posts.

EDIT: Actually, sorry about engaging with this conversation again. I said I would stop before. My bad.

Fair play. 

[Enoby]

3 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

I can't really parse this sorry can someone explain how it's different than current pile-in rules?

This new one refers to units rather than models

[MitGas]

4 minutes ago, JustAsPlanned said:

Ok, this is gonna be the last I say on it - cause yknow, rumour thread, if it’s that controversial a topic then it could get its own thread or something. 

The only one I see getting worked up here that I see is you man. Someone literally pointed out that “hey, the idea of a noble civilising force going out and purging the unclean sounds kinda manifest destiny-ish, hope they don’t ****** it up” and you then acted as if that was in any way an unreasonable observation. Nobody’s trying to “change warhammer” we’re literally just hoping they don’t accidentally glorify colonialism lmao. The game is about war, ofc horrible stuff happens, that’s the point.

Oh and FYI I’ve been playing the both 40k and AoS for roughly 6 years, so please cut out the condescending gatekeepy “maybe try somewhere else” nonsense : ) 

I've been invested in the GW universe since 23 years and have seen many more iterations of Warhammer in all its forms (especially lore-wise - and it used to be a much darker place, so dark some would invent Twitter if it wasn't already there in order to complain somewhere cause in the real world nobody would listen). 

I can remember a time when people weren't constantly offended by the implications that came with certain fiction, much less so Warhammer fiction that was always completely over-the-top - those were stories and common sense reigned supreme. That is the problem here - the poster said that he hopes they'll add the approporiate "disclaimer/social commentary" to it, when it's a fictional thing. Cause reclaiming the lands from Chaos is inherently nicer than colonizing them, right? What does reclaiming the lands from another faction mean.... they are not liberating them (despite the unit's name), they're smashing the people that happen to live there and think Chaos is the way to go cause they grew up like that to bits, cause they fundamentally disagree. 

What are those same people doing when they watch Game Of Thrones? The only thing you could legitimately be offended by was the writing of the later seasons - and a ton of horrible stuff happened in that show but guess what - it's FICTION! Despite no huge disclaimer how horrible this all is, strangely enough people didn't complain there but just consumed the show and everyone knew pretty much what was right and what was wrong. It's a story and in order to create appropriate drama in realms full of war, bad stuff needs to happen.

We now got people arguing that the story plans for the new ed revolving around colonization in a fantasy game echo RL atrocities and that the background writers won't distance themselves from the RL cruelties of that but called it a "good idea" or something in that vein. 🙄

It's not their frikkin job to distance themselves. It's their job to write interesting fiction.

Sure, the colonization in AoS might not be nice but in the end this is a tabletop WAR game.  What did those people expect? Did GRRM add notes in his books when some terrible ****** went down and distanced himself from it (the answer is NO)? Lots of GoT is based on real events too. The good idea thing could mean a ton of stuff but I'm sure the writer didn't think of the rape or slaughter of innocent people when he said "good thing". I'm actually very ambivalent about the whole colonizing action - they can show all its facets or none, I'm only hoping they write it well, no matter which direction they go. But some here get worked up over a fictional colonization (because real ones sucked - so does war) or manifest destiny (surprise, surprise, ever heard of 40k? Yeah, same guys working on both) and "it's good" (which can mean a lot). Seriously. I'm not worked up, it just hurts. 

[CommissarRotke]

2 hours ago, Fuxxx said:

This sounds like those Crusades are just a new Allegiance to choose for Stormcast with some Cities of Sigmar to reinforce and that it's focus is building settlements.

"With the procession led by columns of Stormcast Eternals, Fyreslayers, and Daughters of Khaine," so it's gonna be more than only Stormcast with COS

2 hours ago, MitGas said:

Nah, all cool, bud 💖.   Maybe we'll get old-fahsioned buildings with roofs and other stuff next edition, when they're done? But since these are the new backdrops for battles, I'm not sure if the completion date will hold.

I'd love *removable* roofs for this kind of terrain, though it's understandable if GW doesn't want to get into garrison rules again. I remember them being a mess in WHF

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

I can't really parse this sorry can someone explain how it's different than current pile-in rules?

The big difference it's that in this version you pile in towards the nearest unit, not model. Which is generally a lot easier to do while keeping cohesion and means that it's harder to "lock in" a model during pile in.

[MitGas]

3 hours ago, Enoby said:

I don't want to go down the politics route much longer, but I think one thing to consider is that fantasy is written by people in the real world. In a Literature course this is paramount to note. 

For example, let's say there was a fantasy book about the "Glorious Golden empire of Dussligkopf that was in a war to exterminate a group of greedy verminlike people called the Skrell who tried to hide inside of this pure society and took a lot of power for themselves, leading to the people living in poverty until a new leader arose and had the strength to take back their empire and restore it to the former glory." 

Would this story be saying anything political? 

Of course, Dussligkopf doesn't exist and neither do the Skrell - it's all fantasy. But there are certain political messages that may be gleaned from the text, don't you think? 

I'm not saying this to have a go, but I think it's both healthy and actually really fascinating to look at why a text may have been written (or at least the context around the writing), rather than just skimming the base level

This isn't a political discussion to me. Sure, all art should ideally make people reflect and learn new things or deeper meanings, I'm 100% for that and I'm not arguing against that.

I'm arguing against being offended because there's no moralizing aspect (or the wrong one) to a fictional story (a story doesn't have to be art though, it could just be entertainment... I'm inclined to put Warhammer stories in that category). The reader knows for himself what's good and what isn't. You don't need the writer to take your hand and tell you what you think. THAT IS YOUR JOB. Always has been. The best newspapers are the ones that give you cold facts, not their prefiltered opinion (even if you'd agree with their opinion but yours is always better). It's the reason why they wanted you to read books in school.

So yes, I'll complain if someone wants message control in a Warhammer plot point because he think people can't think for themselves. I'd be more worried about them writing cool stuff. 

[MitGas]

16 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

"With the procession led by columns of Stormcast Eternals, Fyreslayers, and Daughters of Khaine," so it's gonna be more than only Stormcast with COS

I'd love *removable* roofs for this kind of terrain, though it's understandable if GW doesn't want to get into garrison rules again. I remember them being a mess in WHF

Yeah, although I find the undefined buildings we got now (half-open) are kinda impractical. I love them as they look amazing but in our group the simple terrain (like a block) is usually the preferred choice. But we're dolts. 😂

[CommissarRotke]

13 minutes ago, MitGas said:

I can remember a time when people weren't constantly offended by the implications that came with certain fiction, much less so Warhammer fiction that was always completely over-the-top - those were stories and common sense reigned supreme.

My problem with this argument is: just because you didn't see it back then, does not at all mean the same critiques did not exist. GW had a lot of terrible models way back when: pygmies probably being the most egregious. Hobgoblins have been posted here as well. Our modern internet is a global, instantaneous telecommunications platform; these critiques are now much more easily accessible and viewable in ways they never were before. That is what happened, not "common sense going out the window."

You are now more likely to see a diverse range of opinions, including long-standing critiques of media. People have always been critically analyzing the media we enjoy. To me, it's a sign of respect to the creators--you don't spend time critiquing media you have not invested energy in.