The Rumour Thread

[Malakithe]

Does anyone know or have heard why there will be a points increase across the game? Does GW not want to sell more stuff? They attempted the same thing with 40k 9th but it backfired and they have sense been decreasing and reshuffling points whenever a new book comes out

[Tiberius501]

40 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

Does anyone know or have heard why there will be a points increase across the game? Does GW not want to sell more stuff? They attempted the same thing with 40k 9th but it backfired and they have sense been decreasing and reshuffling points whenever a new book comes out

No official word from GW, and no substantial leaks, but there are rumours floating about.

The reason behind it is generally for faster games. Less models means less dice rolling/movement/etc so games are sped up a little. 

[Malakithe]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius501 said:

No official word from GW, and no substantial leaks, but there are rumours floating about.

The reason behind it is generally for faster games. Less models means less dice rolling/movement/etc so games are sped up a little. 

And yet they add a ton of multi phase interactions that both players can do during eachothers turns and phases. That alone will slow down the game far more then a reduced model count

[The Red King]

23 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

And yet they add a ton of multi phase interactions that both players can do during eachothers turns and phases. That alone will slow down the game far more then a reduced model count

If I trusted GW I'd say they reduced the points because they added the things you mentioned. Imagine if it had just been adding the extra stuff how long games would be.

[Baron Klatz]

8 hours ago, dirkdragonslayer said:

Maybe they would have had more screentime depending on the Broken Realms Allarielle rumors. Like instead of the start of Kragnos being about Allarielle it would have Glutos and Sigvald getting lost in the jungle fighting Seraphon.

That's been my theory when they failed to show up. They had a long way to travel and would've been caught up in the life flood. Forests, jungles amd elementals popping up everywhere would slow down any force, especially the new Hedonites who look to be accustomed to open battles and deserts.

2 hours ago, TimeToWaste85 said:

Other than that, feels like WHFB returning with ranks. We used to fight only front rank, unless you had spears (

That's true of every fantasy and historical wargame before they added second ranks with spears then allowing a third to fight. You could pull that with AoS 1-2 too, just now there's thicker screens 10-20 models long and either chainshot formations to hold multiple objectives or triangle island chains(three models per island) for a more offensive screen.

I recommend you check out their LotR rules for a fantasy wargame on rounds, it's been pointed out how much AoS3 is borrowing from it(which makes sense as it started with that inspiration) for rules on the heroes, monsters and now activations during the opponent's turn. AoS3 feels like they took the LotR and 40k inspirations it had and cranked them up to 11 for the new edition.

Which is great, LotR is undisputedly one of their best rulesets in combining large battles with small skirmish on the battlefield so coupling it with AoS' success, gorgeous models and fun streamlined gameplay is a excellent move.

3 hours ago, Athrawes said:

You wouldn't and that is the point. GW is trying to disincentivize running large units in favor of minimum size this edition.

But a lot of people, you included, seem to think that because a person is discouraged from running them in large blocks, that person will opt not to run them at all instead of in small units.

And I think that is a silly train of thought. 

Lots of people use MSU already. Raging that this change will "primarily nerf model sales" is just howling at the moon.

Indeed. Plus a trick I see is a new percieved "great value" by shrinking units down to 5. Now that Liberator box of 10 is a deal because you get two units.

I assume that's why the Dominion box has 10 Vindictors but literally everything else shown is 5 of them. A lot of 10 unit boxes are going to look better with the new rules and up sales with players wanting two 5 man units that the core battalions will push to 3 to 4 reinforced units.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Baron Klatz

[dirkdragonslayer]

25 minutes ago, Baron Klatz said:

Indeed. Plus a trick I see is a new percieved "great value" by shrinking units down to 5. Now that Liberator box of 10 is a deal because you get two units.

I assume that's why the Dominion box has 10 Vindictors but literally everything else shown is 5 of them. A lot of 10 unit boxes are going to look better with the new rules and up sales with players wanting two 5 man units that the core battalions will push to 3 to 4 reinforced units.

I mean, that is exactly why Primaris marines come in squads of 5. When in promotional material or in a bundle Primaris marines are usually shown or sold as a squad of 5. During most of 8th edition they sold Primaris Intercessors/Hellblasters/Reivers in either boxes of 5 or 10 (there is still a remnant of this in Primaris Death Company Intercessors and Hounds of Morkai being sold in 5).

So the 60$ box price for 10 looks high against other infantry, but technically it's two squads of 5 infantry for $30 each. This puts them as technically cheaper per squad than units like Boyz or Guardians. I don't agree with this valuation, but it's the reasoning I usually see applied to Primaris prices.

[KrispyXIV]

2 hours ago, Malakithe said:

Does anyone know or have heard why there will be a points increase across the game? Does GW not want to sell more stuff? They attempted the same thing with 40k 9th but it backfired and they have sense been decreasing and reshuffling points whenever a new book comes out

Speculation - the new Battalions won't cost points, meaning that across the boards points increases will serve to ensure that many armies (that previous used battalions) are about the same model count as previous.  

[Malakithe]

52 minutes ago, The Red King said:

If I trusted GW I'd say they reduced the points because they added the things you mentioned. Imagine if it had just been adding the extra stuff how long games would be.

Realistically the time difference isnt that much different. 40k games are roughly the same and they have way more models on the table and tons of rules 

[The Red King]

9 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

Realistically the time difference isnt that much different. 40k games are roughly the same and they have way more models on the table and tons of rules 

But... I was responding to you saying:

 

"And yet they add a ton of multi phase interactions that both players can do during eachothers turns and phases. That alone will slow down the game far more then a reduced model count"

 

Change your mind that fast?

[Malakithe]

1 minute ago, The Red King said:

But... I was responding to you saying:

 

"And yet they add a ton of multi phase interactions that both players can do during eachothers turns and phases. That alone will slow down the game far more then a reduced model count"

 

Change your mind that fast?

No I still think a points increase isnt needed or warranted no matter how many layers of strange complex ****** they toss out there. I just like putting more models on the table. 

[Reinholt]

4 hours ago, Athrawes said:

You wouldn't and that is the point. GW is trying to disincentivize running large units in favor of minimum size this edition.

But a lot of people, you included, seem to think that because a person is discouraged from running them in large blocks, that person will opt not to run them at all instead of in small units.

And I think that is a silly train of thought. 

Lots of people use MSU already. Raging that this change will "primarily nerf model sales" is just howling at the moon.

I picked Gluttons for a reason: there are other, better MSU units in the same book that someone else already raised. Why would you ever run a Glutton when you could take a Leadbelcher or Mournfang now? There will be whole units that are just unworkable in several books because weapon range / unit size / unit upgrades / base size are now horribly misaligned.

My point is that large units on 25mm bases are likely still fine, but large units on larger than 25mm bases are actually extreme dead weight unless you have 2" (ideally 3") weapons. The secret dominant factor for AoS 3 without a revision to rank fighting will be base size, which is very weird. As in, if you could put the same model on a smaller base you would pay more points for it, with no other characteristic changes.

I know people have gone MSU before, but there are warscrolls / abilities / points for units that now are completely broken even internal to their own book because of the coherency changes.

I just hope GW has the sense to do rank fighting or we're in a very weird place because they already seemed not to understand the value of smaller bases!

[Still-young]

40 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

No I still think a points increase isnt needed or warranted no matter how many layers of strange complex ****** they toss out there. I just like putting more models on the table. 

The table size is also getting smaller too, which might have something to do with it?

[zilberfrid]

43 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

No I still think a points increase isnt needed or warranted no matter how many layers of strange complex ****** they toss out there. I just like putting more models on the table. 

Most of the balancing was done by decreasing points costs, which made the barrier of entry higher for new players.

Increase the point cost, and that barrier of entry gets lower. If you combine this with price increases or heavier reliance on heroes and elites (which have higher income per gramme of plastic), you will also decrease spending while either keeping income the same or even increasing this.

[The Brotherhood of Necros]

I’m really optimistic (excited, even!) about the changes I’ve heard so far. 

— I think the reinforcement rules will do wonders for improving the variety of units taken in each game

— I think the battalions will do the same. You’ll want to include as many of those different unit types to ‘hit’ lots of the battalions and unlock the benefits

— I’m excited by all the command abilities/reactions talked about, which I think will make each turn (never mind each round) much more fun for me and my opponent

— and I don’t see the points increases as a cause for concern; newer players will be able to get into the game more easily (and keep this hobby we all love so much alive!) and if I want to play bigger games with more miniatures, I can still play a higher pointer game

I anticipate the impact of all these changes making the experience better from both a narrative and a competitive point of view.

Competitively, the game will become so much more strategic, with the potential to react to your opponent as they make a move or attack (choosing who to weather the storm of arrows, who to bolster in combat, when to boost that charge etc.) This effect will be compounded by the fact that games have more, generally smaller units. You’ll have to think more about who you buff, but also how you coordinate those MSU effectively to get the most out of your army selection and maximise on opportunities in-game... all while trying to second-guess your opponent, who’s doing the same. 

 Narratively, battles might seem more epic and also more immersive as you become more involved in your opponent’s turns, holding lines, weathering those arrows, yelling commands as the foe charges in... I can see my heroes feeling more like heroes and my monsters feeling more monstrous, and once everyone has got their heads around the minutia of the new rules and how they play (of course there’ll be a learning curve before the rules become second nature, when the first few games are likely to slow down), I think that immersion will go a long way towards the illusion that the games are faster and more dynamic. 

Army compositions will change. Some units that were good before may not be so useful/playable, and some that weren’t will become better. All that’s a given, but there’s so much more we haven’t seen yet and I’m trusting that GW will get it right. 

Buzzing! 

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, Reinholt said:

I picked Gluttons for a reason: there are other, better MSU units in the same book that someone else already raised. Why would you ever run a Glutton when you could take a Leadbelcher or Mournfang now? There will be whole units that are just unworkable in several books because weapon range / unit size / unit upgrades / base size are now horribly misaligned.

My point is that large units on 25mm bases are likely still fine, but large units on larger than 25mm bases are actually extreme dead weight unless you have 2" (ideally 3") weapons. The secret dominant factor for AoS 3 without a revision to rank fighting will be base size, which is very weird. As in, if you could put the same model on a smaller base you would pay more points for it, with no other characteristic changes.

I know people have gone MSU before, but there are warscrolls / abilities / points for units that now are completely broken even internal to their own book because of the coherency changes.

I just hope GW has the sense to do rank fighting or we're in a very weird place because they already seemed not to understand the value of smaller bases!

Because objectives.

[Deakz28]

39 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Because objectives.

This is a strong point, if we take a lot of what has happened in 40k we know matched play is going revolve heavily about objectives now, however if you’re not fussed about matches play (myself being not fussed too) I don’t think this is too much of an issue, we play for fun and enjoyment, we will get used to the changes, and with friends, even tweak the rules to better fit ourselves 

[Kaleb Daark]

14 hours ago, KingBrodd said:

I hope they update them, the WHFB Minotaurs were better sculpts IMO. 

Absolutely.

The Citadel C34 range of minotaurs

1986 I give you OX ROAR 

AYE THANGYEOW..

now be a good beardling GW and give me a modern take on these bad boys  ( i.e. reverse knees and hooves) and we'll be cooking on gas.

 

Also.. Come on... is this not all of the awesome?

 

 

On a very serious note,  we're in the Age of Sigmar now.

I do think that it's time to retire anything that was an old fantasy sculpt and consign it to the past, and perhaps leave it to the incoming Warhammer: the old world.

I say this because those models were designed for ranks and flanks, whereas AoS models are free of those shackles so can be more dynamic, and are, and we now have a different scale working with AoS as well.

I'd happily trade new factions for the older models in each faction getting a makeover in the same way that Belakor, sigvald etc have.   Anything that was released at the end of 8th edition whfb was designed with AoS in mind and we can see that in the aesthetic and look.

 

I had a moment of epiphany the other week. 

A very dear friend of mine can't let og of fantasy - he hates AoS and despises what they've done to his beloved factions he used to play.   I found myself defending AoS.  Yes it's not fantasy, but as I put it.. I could never run my wishlist army just juggernauts in fantasy.

I love the double turn and I love the variability in AoS, all things which can turn the tide as sure as a game  of bloodbowl can swing the other way in an instant, and all these things make AoS great for me.  I love the fact that the rules are four pages long and I can pick it up in half an hour - it's like X-Wing in that respect, and I'm glad that AoS in respect to scale and scope has left fantasy far behind.

 

Anyway back to rumours, if Ogors are getting a birthday soon then I'd advise you / us as a community to start getting on GW and Forgeworld's back about bringing back the Rhinox cavalry - why they didn't I will never know.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Kaleb Daark

[Dankboss]

5 hours ago, Malakithe said:

Does anyone know or have heard why there will be a points increase across the game? Does GW not want to sell more stuff? They attempted the same thing with 40k 9th but it backfired and they have sense been decreasing and reshuffling points whenever a new book comes out

My thoughts is that a 2k army is a bit of a gatekeeper to some people, since that's the standard level of play, and to new players that's a hell of a lot of work you need to put in just to play. I'm sure some people get put off at a glance. Reducing army sizes by say 10% will help the barrier to entry.

[Kaleb Daark]

11 minutes ago, Dankboss said:

My thoughts is that a 2k army is a bit of a gatekeeper to some people, since that's the standard level of play, and to new players that's a hell of a lot of work you need to put in just to play. I'm sure some people get put off at a glance. Reducing army sizes by say 10% will help the barrier to entry.

I saw it the same.  The minimum buy in was creeping up.  That said with less models and t he new way you can build a force, I can see their thinking being along the lines of people will feel that they can buy more cool stuff over having to have swarms of  battleline "padding".

Edited June 12, 2021 by Kaleb Daark

[Dankboss]

Based on what a friend who worked in a GW store told me, they care more about getting new customers in than catering to old customers. Apparently the metric they used was starter boxes sold, even if a new player didn't buy it. The potential for new customers will definitely outweigh the one box of dudes less recurring customers buy for their 2k, at least in their eyes.

[King Under the Mountain]

7 minutes ago, Dankboss said:

My thoughts is that a 2k army is a bit of a gatekeeper to some people, since that's the standard level of play, and to new players that's a hell of a lot of work you need to put in just to play. I'm sure some people get put off at a glance. Reducing army sizes by say 10% will help the barrier to entry.

I do not have fond memories of the point creep with Fantasy.  By 8th Edition my elite Dwarf Army has 120 troops and several war machines. 

I also don't fondly remember waiting an hour for my poor Skaven opponent to set up his something like 200 models. 

[Erdemo86]

I really like all the things so far, without the shooting buff. If they would bring some shooting nerf now, I would be very satisfied. Maybe something like -1 Hit over the half range?

Or -1 hit if you move and shoot? Or both 😅

anything I would appreciate..

Edited June 12, 2021 by Erdemo86

[Clan's Cynic]

Looks like they have some weird new queue system for the webstore that dumps you (randomly) somewhere in line and gives you ten minutes to buy.

Presumably it's meant to be an anti-scalper measure in preparation for Dominion, but considering I'd been placed in an "Estimated wait time; 40 minutes" something tells me it's not going to work out any different to if people were spamming F5.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[Overread]

UK GW webstore appears to be experimenting with a new system to try and beat scalpers and such by running a queue system. I'm guessing its a trial run before they deploy it next week for the tide of people after AoS 3.0. 

[Overread]

3 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Presumably it's meant to be an anti-scalper measure, but considering I'd been placed in an "Estimated wait time; 40 minutes" something tells me it's not going to work out any different to if people were spamming F5.

The time appears to update live, eg my first wait time was 36 but its now down to 7 in way less than 30mins. So chances are its reactive to changes in the queue system. 

Functionally it might not be any different to mashing F5 for us, but at GW's end it might stem the tide of continual refresh requests on the site. So instead of the site going down because its getting too many data requests, it remains active. It means if there's 1000 customers and only 50 copies a lot of people will still miss out; but it at least means GW's site won't break. It might also allow for an easier time blocking casual s calpers.