The Rumour Thread

[chosen_of_khaine]

3 minutes ago, Hellberg said:

Is there going to be a faction article about OBR today? They are next in line but I'm not sure if they post these on weekends. 

I would love to see how their RDP mechanic works with existing changes in 3.0

Presumably, nothing changes until their next book because nothing *needs* to change, even if it *should*. It's unclear how much actual errata they will be adding to old tomes to bring them in line with the new edition.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

Indeed, which is somewhat an odd choice considering GW is also pushing more model diversity per army right now with armies getting bigger and heck Stormcast have a huge problem with it. 

Perhaps only second to terrain type/density, game size is one of the aspects most under control by the players.  Players have far more control of the size of the game than Games Workshop does. I see so many online pleased that there is a points increase. (Which I think is far, far more an edition points reset that an honest attempt to make armies smaller.) Yet, they could easily just play at 1750 pts, and you will have a hard time convincing me that the unbalanced game that is AoS suddenly really goes off the rails a with a loss of about 12%.  Which is funny enough what a lot of people (not just here) seem to want. 

I don't think GW games are built with that much attention paid to the points limits of games.  Sure, they somewhat ranged in for about that size and any play testing is probably done there.  However, I have never felt that GW games really fall apart going +/-- 25% of this mystical gold standard almost everyone believes the game is meant to be placed at.

Truth is more likely that GW games have crept larger and larger as they mature and gain players with larger and larger collections.  When 40k 9thed was revealed, I knew more than a few players wanting to go to 2,500 points after hearing the points [s]increase[/s] reset.  I get that GW wants to recruit new blood and trying to not induce sticker shock is important to them.  I just don't think they have much control over game size as the internet wants to indicate.  If anything, major tournaments hold most of the control of it.

 

1 hour ago, pseudonyme said:

Yeah, as much as I love the changes we’ve seen so far (I asked for lots of them in their annual surveys), I guess GW turned their back against their ever evolving ruleset and revert back to editions. Note that I am not judging and have no idea if it is a bad thing, just that the original promise is not there

It's both really.  I know many people were conflating a "living rules set" as the last edition of 40k about 4 years ago.  That GW would just keep updating and updating 8th until the company finally closed its doors. The issue is a living rules set is more about monitoring the game and making updates and changes during its life cycle.  Which between regular/semi-constant FAQ/Erratas and Chapter Approved books it did.  There were even a couple of updated codices (Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines) and Psychic Awakening and Vigilis for practically all factions.  While not all factions did see new units/models more did that any point in 40k's history for the same amount of time (as far as I am aware).  Finally, via social media GW perpetually promoted 40k (to sell stuff, but that's why GW exists).  I am not commenting on the quality or method of these.  Just that they do meet a sort of minimum level of creating a living rules set.

I suppose the key is 'living' rules, not 'immortal' rules. I get some of the frustration.  However, I see it time and time again with GW fans/ex-fans.  While many are cynical, they still have a blinding hope from something they loved long ago that maybe this time GW can right itself into something they like or at least can tolerate to return at least a little bit back to what they did adore. 

I don't ever remember GW saying that they were never going to do editions again.  I do remember folks online saying that, and me remembering (perhaps even pointing it out) that isn't what was said.  So, I think this is more you're misremembering what others misinterpreting GW was saying more than what GW actually said. 

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

10 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

I would agree if 40k wasnt a thing. They did make the table smaller for 40k first and tried increasing points but it didnt last and they reverted and reshuffled points costs there. There is even more rules and more horde armies then there used to be within 40k. 

Who knows...their plans could be vastly different  for AoS.

I for one find it more fun to have more stuff on the table. 

Games Workshop didn't make games smaller.  They just quantified what the smallest size table could be used before they felt the game wouldn't work.  It's the players (or as the cynical part of me would say: a U.S. major tournament organization (and play testers) that sells game mats and just so happened these new sizes mats) that decided minimum must mean recommended. 

I also don't buy the idea that the BRB doesn't list a maximum table size as there are some practical limits in place for that if the players don't want to play on the floor. I also don't think if GW just listed a maximum size without the minimum, tournaments (and thus many players) would suddenly chuck out the old 6'x4' and build new tables.

While it is clear that GW created the table size of their cardboard mats and likely didn't really check if games actually become unbearable at less square footage, I do find it odd the rush to bottom (home gaming where space is an issue aside) playing GW games in the smallest possible format before even the designers say that the game probably won't work any smaller.  I might even be okay with it if it were something like major league baseball where tables are going to be different sizes and players have to learn to play on all of them.  But I know the vast majority of tournament players loathe variation, especially uncontrolled variation.

[Chikout]

I live in Japan. It's virtually impossible to find space for a 6 by 4 table in most houses. Most people don't have garages or even gardens. You could probably say the same for anyone who lives in a big city and isn't extremely rich.  A game that is designed to be playable on a dining table is a change that may cause short term pain for some people but is far better in the long term. 

As for the points changes I think as AoS has gone along there has been a definite decrease in points and increase in army size. If the points do all go up it will be a much needed reset which will make  the game  more affordable, less time consuming to paint, and hopefully faster to play. 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Chikout

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

@Chikout Which is fine.  Even in previous editions I would be fine with a smaller table as it is completely understandable to the reasons.  I played 40k on a round dining room table that was maybe 4' in diameter.  You make due with the space you have.  That said, I don't understand giving up area when you have it available.  My current FLGS has a bunch of 6'x4' tables. So there isn't any need to go smaller.  At a store I used to play at, they had 8'x4' tables with side board cubbies.  Since the space was there, often games would make use of it.

 

It also seems to me that if space and/or new players entry are such a concern smaller point games would be a panacea.  I personally don't have any kind of attachment to playing 2000 point games for either AoS or 40k.  Quite the contrary, I find them to be a little too unwieldy.  As someone that started playing miniatures war games outside the walled garden of Games Workshop, I found that most games regardless of being squad or field army level work best when players are controlling about 8-14 individual units with extremes being as small as 6 and as big as 20.  Any less and the game goes swingy (which 40k knights often demonstrate) and any more and the game bogs down and/or becomes gamey (mostly in alternating activation games).

While both AoS and 40k can (and often do) fall with in that Goldilocks zone, it is also very easy for them to push to the extremes and beyond. With the rules peeks for AoS 3rd ed, I can easily see this becoming worst with an apparent increase in MSU.  At least at 2000 pts. Which after the reset, let's be honest; armies are going to get bigger from points re-balances.  With AoS 3rd ed likely placing about the same amount of models on the table (just different ones) as they do now.

Me, I like smaller points games.  I am always glad when a player suggests going down to 750, 850 or1000 points or anything in between that and 2000 points.  I enjoy it far more than going over 2000 points.  This is more 40k than AoS, but the larger the points the more the early game feels like a 1000-1500 pt game but somewhat randomized to what those 1000-1500 pts are.  Since huge chunks of your army are removed in trades from your opponent's army. I feel we might as well start there.

Thing is, it really isn't GW preventing me from playing smaller games.  It's players that see 2000 point games as the gold standard that you play lesser amounts only as you are building up your army to return to less you are playing someone else who is building up their army. 

And really 2000 points is just a number.  Most players want their army to be the size that 2000 points gets them +/- maybe a squad or two.  Any less, and I think they'll just move to 2250 or even 2500 points.  Which is how I suspect 40K and AoS by association got to where it is at. I think GW can tweek points about 10% but anymore and the players (mostly tournaments) will likely creep up the points total to compensate.

[sandlemad]

2 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

It is also more expensive. We know that GW has extremely high prices for leaders and centerpieces. More armies, more of such models are required. In other words, the cost of adding points to an existing army is lower than that of adding them to a new army.

I don't know. The cost of a functional AoS army is quite high. I know that, towards the end of WHFB, GW was pushing for those big expensive blobs, so I do not know right now how the cost compares. But I can tell you, I recently estimated the pure mini cost of the sisters of battle army that goonhammer recommended and it is bordering 1000$. No paints, no transport cases, just the boxes of miniatures.

There's something there alright and that's basically what I'm getting at, that while a shift to hero/monster/centrepieces as the movers and shakers of any AoS force can be presented as a means of lowering barriers to entry, in practice it's not going to make a significant difference and may often be more expensive (just as WHU and Warcy and such have become significantly more expensive in the last two years, corroding their potential as affordable entry points).

Another angle here could be that a shift to hero/monster/centrepieces being more important could be a way of making armies more diverse and so more appealing to buy. Possibly GW wants the rules to support a model where a new players buys a bit of this and a bit of that rather than being told 'ok, you need to buy six to eight boxes of the exact same basic infantry dudes to have a viable force', which does make people catch their breath and makes for an intimidatingly boring army building experience.

1 hour ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

Perhaps only second to terrain type/density, game size is one of the aspects most under control by the players.  Players have far more control of the size of the game than Games Workshop does. I see so many online pleased that there is a points increase. (Which I think is far, far more an edition points reset that an honest attempt to make armies smaller.) Yet, they could easily just play at 1750 pts, and you will have a hard time convincing me that the unbalanced game that is AoS suddenly really goes off the rails a with a loss of about 12%.  Which is funny enough what a lot of people (not just here) seem to want. 

I don't think GW games are built with that much attention paid to the points limits of games.  Sure, they somewhat ranged in for about that size and any play testing is probably done there.  However, I have never felt that GW games really fall apart going +/-- 25% of this mystical gold standard almost everyone believes the game is meant to be placed at.

Well put, as much as there's a hundred and one things to justly and harshly criticise GW for, 'standard' game size inertia isn't one of them. That consistent attitude of "strict matched play at 2000 points is the only real way to play", expressed consciously or unconsciously, goes back years in WHFB and 40k (though there it was 1500pts for a long time). This comes largely from inertia in the player community and sometimes manifests as real hostility to attempts to do things differently, whether from other players or even GW themselves.

Edited June 12, 2021 by sandlemad

[Morglum StormBasha]

When did 2000 point get cemented ? Was it 4th ed? 3rd Ed wfb suggests 3000 points as standard size 

[Dreddships]

3 minutes ago, Morglum StormBasha said:

When did 2000 point get cemented ? Was it 4th ed? 3rd Ed wfb suggests 3000 points as standard size 

Imported from 40k, where 2k has been the norm since as far as I can recall in 4th

-

Hot take : AOS plays honestly best at 1000 points.

9th 40k does too.

Those out-of-the-box Indomitus games sold me on 9th then lost me when I tried ramping it up to 2k.

Quicker, feels more active.

1k best game size.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Dreddships
1000 points best pointd

[Scurvydog]

2 hours ago, chosen_of_khaine said:

Presumably, nothing changes until their next book because nothing *needs* to change, even if it *should*. It's unclear how much actual errata they will be adding to old tomes to bring them in line with the new edition.

If nothing changes they will be an absolute dumpsterfire. They endless spell mechanic everyone got now, but without a -1 to cast. Everyone got way more command points and better commands, if OBR does not get anything to compensate for not having access to any commands, what is the point of the army?

[Yoid]

14 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:

If nothing changes they will be an absolute dumpsterfire. They endless spell mechanic everyone got now, but without a -1 to cast. Everyone got way more command points and better commands, if OBR does not get anything to compensate for not having access to any commands, what is the point of the army?

New battleshock inmunity is gonna be even more powerful than before due to restrictions on Inspiring Presence. Is not like they loose everything. In fact they loose nothing.

In my group we play in a budget since forever and we aim to have 1000pts armies since the begining (after many years of collecting). Most of our games were 750pts 3 players free for all. This new rules for 750pts gonna do wonders.

[Scurvydog]

4 minutes ago, Yoid said:

New battleshock inmunity is gonna be even more powerful than before due to restrictions on Inspiring Presence. Is not like they loose everything. In fact they loose nothing.

In my group we play in a budget since forever and we aim to have 1000pts armies since the begining (after many years of collecting). Most of our games were 750pts 3 players free for all. This new rules for 750pts gonna do wonders.

I stand by this army is the one standing to be left behind the most with the new edition if nothing major changes. Their endless spell mechanic with soulbound spells is basically the new mechanic for endless spells, however they got -1 to all casts with an endless spell on the board, that rule will be absolutely silly if they still get -1, so it should see major changes or be removed all together.

Their other unique mechanic is not worse in itself, but it is worse in relation to what everyone else are getting. With more command points and strong command abilities, by staying the same as before, OBR will be weaker overall in comparison. Imagine their catapults now when everyone gets easy access to +1 save in the shooting phase...

Also their abilities are still technically commands, so would also need to be FAQd if they can use the same more times, imagine if that is not addressed and only 1 mortek guard unit can use shield wall? Or 1 unit can use the +3" move? 

The new edition has raised a lot of questions and a lot of new stuff, most which concerns rules of stuff OBR does not have or in relation makes what they got much worse. The army needs some good FAQs to be playable, but of course GW is on top of that, they would never mess up something like that surely

[Hellberg]

it's up 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/12/implacable-inexorable-inevitable-ossiarch-bonereapers-march-into-the-new-edition/

 

I have to say that I was hoping for more info.. 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Hellberg

[PrimeElectrid]

Big change here. Could be good on combat wizards 

[Clan's Cynic]

You vs The Guy She Tells You Not To Worry About

(Stolen from Reddit)

Edited June 12, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[Dreddships]

Just now, Clan's Cynic said:

You vs The Guy She Tells You Not To Worry About

(Stolen from Reddit)

They really did make Primaris Stormcast.

Anyone got a size comparison yet on the Kruleboyz or the rest of the SCE side bc these models seem massive??

[MitGas]

3 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

You vs The Guy She Tells You Not To Worry About

(Stolen from Reddit)

Hmmm, look to be Varanguard-sized, that's massive indeed! 

[Tiberius501]

I’m not sure he’s bigger, I think it’s a combination of him standing up strait and on some rubble.

[ageofpaddsmar]

17 minutes ago, Hellberg said:

it's up 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/12/implacable-inexorable-inevitable-ossiarch-bonereapers-march-into-the-new-edition/

 

I have to say that I was hoping for more info.. 

There should be another article today about all the things you can do in your opponents turn. Hopefully up around 6pm UK time 

[JackStreicher]

8 minutes ago, Tiberius501 said:

I’m not sure he’s bigger, I think it’s a combination of him standing up strait and on some rubble.

Indeed.

the new SCE is standing very straight and upright atop of rubble. The Liberator has a wide stance

[Scurvydog]

24 minutes ago, Hellberg said:

it's up 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/12/implacable-inexorable-inevitable-ossiarch-bonereapers-march-into-the-new-edition/

 

I have to say that I was hoping for more info.. 

As expected it addressed 0 of the pressing questions about OBR in relation to the rules we have seen. 2 places mystic shield is mentioned and not shown and Kavalos mentioned as "winners" because of reinforcement rules? 

Their endless spell soulbound rules being much worse now than the new baseline endless spell rules was not addressed. The relentless discipline points were not addressed, neither the fact that warscroll battalions was an alternative to generate said points which is now removed.

The only interesting bit is how much arcane bolt has changed, but that is hardly related to OBR at all. Can only hope someone still managed to address any legit issues in a day 1 3.0 FAQ for battletomes...

[Malakithe]

Well that was a meh article as usual. Nerfed arcane bolt?

[Yoid]

41 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:

I stand by this army is the one standing to be left behind the most with the new edition if nothing major changes. Their endless spell mechanic with soulbound spells is basically the new mechanic for endless spells, however they got -1 to all casts with an endless spell on the board, that rule will be absolutely silly if they still get -1, so it should see major changes or be removed all together.

Their other unique mechanic is not worse in itself, but it is worse in relation to what everyone else are getting. With more command points and strong command abilities, by staying the same as before, OBR will be weaker overall in comparison. Imagine their catapults now when everyone gets easy access to +1 save in the shooting phase...

Also their abilities are still technically commands, so would also need to be FAQd if they can use the same more times, imagine if that is not addressed and only 1 mortek guard unit can use shield wall? Or 1 unit can use the +3" move? 

The new edition has raised a lot of questions and a lot of new stuff, most which concerns rules of stuff OBR does not have or in relation makes what they got much worse. The army needs some good FAQs to be playable, but of course GW is on top of that, they would never mess up something like that surely

I get it. There gonna be outdated rules in some armies for a while until battletomes fix them. Meanwhile try to roar into the objective of your catapult with your harvester to avoid the +1 save.

[The Red King]

3 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

Well that was a meh article as usual. Nerfed arcane bolt?

Nerf to ranged MW output and yet still somehow another nerf to going into melee lol

[Yoid]

9 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

Well that was a meh article as usual. Nerfed arcane bolt?

I like this Arcane Bolt, dosn't seem nerf to me. Less range but you can pop it after movement so same range. Now the updated damage dont depend on your casting roll (or bonus) but is about you charging then poping it in the combat phase.

Is easier to cast without bonuses and you can hold it your whole turn and use it defensively in the enemy turn when something charge you, if nothing do you can pop it in the combat phase anyway and chip something at 12inch. Is quite cool and way more tactical, open a lot of possibilities

Edited June 12, 2021 by Yoid

[Acrozatarim]

The faction preview articles are all gonna be meh because they're not going to say much of anything about potential faction changes for battletomes that are months if not years out. They're each going to call out some warscrolls and tell us that unit will be great in the new edition due to one or more of, to quote someone from another forum:

• It's a monster and monsters will be better
• It's a hero and heroes will be better
• It is slow or has short range, and will be better able to get within range on the smaller board
• It is fast or has high range and will be able to reach almost anywhere on the smaller board
• It has a small footprint, and thus will be easier to maneuver on the smaller board
• It has a large footprint, and thus will control a greater percentage of the smaller board

With the occasional tidbit of actual new rules like Arcane Bolt thrown in for those of us who're already AoS players.

It's what they did for 40k 9e with the faction articles. You are not going to get any major rules changes for the individual factions previewed in these articles, so don't expect them. The bespoke rules improvements/changes/reviews will come later with the battletomes themselves.