The Rumour Thread

[CommissarRotke]

9 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

These are too many changes for a Balance Update. I think this is a wishlist.

Not for a faction that has no 3.0 battletome yet IMHO. The Counts-As update feels like a 3.0 change they wanted to push sooner rather than wait on a book. Points is a given for these passes. Wounds I can see remaining the same.

[Indecisive]

between the eldar focus and gradual corruption of the engine art, safe to say playing up the eldar vs csm box might be the clear theme of the calendar
today's might be a character weapon, unit special weapon, or bike riders weapon

maybe if we're lucky it might be a 10/10/4 split of eldar/csm/aos and there is something relevant to here at the end

[yukishiro1]

I don't think they're going to change wound counts in a free update, that isn't something they have ever done in the past either in AOS or in 40k. There's no reason in theory they couldn't I guess, but it strikes me as very unlikely. More likely IMHO is adding objective counts-as to the degrading tables, raising points in such a way that you basically have to take 3 megas + some minis instead of 4 megas, or maybe even adding a rider that Gargants can't use the generic artefacts because they're too small for them. The wound count and durability of a Gargant army becomes significantly more manageable if they get nerfed to either a 6+ ward or spells depending on their allegiance, instead of a 5+ ward AND spells like they get currently. 

More broadly they are in a tough spot with Gargants because they are oppressive at the lower echelons of competition but not actually all that overpowered at the top. But the army is so point-and-click and limited in its design that there aren't many levers they can tweak that will make them less oppressive for lower tier armies and opponents without also making them non-competitive. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Higolx]

10 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I don't think they're going to change wound counts in a free update, that isn't something they have ever done in the past either in AOS or in 40k. There's no reason in theory they couldn't I guess, but it strikes me as very unlikely. More likely IMHO is adding objective counts-as to the degrading tables, raising points in such a way that you basically have to take 3 megas + some minis instead of 4 megas, or maybe even adding a rider that Gargants can't use the generic artefacts because they're too small for them. The wound count and durability of a Gargant army becomes significantly more manageable if they get nerfed to either a 6+ ward or spells depending on their allegiance, instead of a 5+ ward AND spells like they get currently. 

I mean, after the 40k update I think everything could happen. They also never limited a unit type like they did with fliers or limited ork vehicles or added their core keyword to like half a book before. I dont know enough about SoB to really have an opinion on this but I think it could be possible based on the precedents set by the 40k update

[Ganigumo]

6 minutes ago, Higolx said:

I mean, after the 40k update I think everything could happen. They also never limited a unit type like they did with fliers or limited ork vehicles or added their core keyword to like half a book before. I dont know enough about SoB to really have an opinion on this but I think it could be possible based on the precedents set by the 40k update

I really hope they don't do this. The ork buggy and flier fixes were bandaids because they didn't want to try to actually balance the units, so they just strapped a limit on the amount of "broken" units you can take. 40k also has "the rule of 3" since at least last edition where you can't take more than 3 of a non troop datasheet in your army.
I absolutely hate rules like this on principal, skewed spam lists only exist because the units themselves are broken, so just fix the broken units.

[Higolx]

18 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

I really hope they don't do this. The ork buggy and flier fixes were bandaids because they didn't want to try to actually balance the units, so they just strapped a limit on the amount of "broken" units you can take. 40k also has "the rule of 3" since at least last edition where you can't take more than 3 of a non troop datasheet in your army.
I absolutely hate rules like this on principal, skewed spam lists only exist because the units themselves are broken, so just fix the broken units.

I personally dont really like those either. Some limitations are ok here and there when they are flavorful (only 1 space marine captain per detachment etc). Im just saying that since those happened before in 40k it could happen on AoS too. Only time will tell I guess.

[yukishiro1]

It's not impossible they'd change wounds, but it'd be another step beyond what they did in the 40k balance patch. They've spent more than a year and a half now in 40k resisting just issuing a free update to give CSM the same 2 wounds they gave to normal SM at the start of 9th edition for example, despite the constant (justified) griping and bad will that has generated.

I also don't think it's really the problem with gargants TBH. The wound count for a 4-gargant army is 140, which is on the high side for a 3.0 army but not ridiculously high. The issue is how much you can string out those wounds using the 5+ ward and arcane shield, and that you get most of the benefit of the model even when it has only 1 wound remaining. Better to just go after the problem directly IMO. Nerfing the base stats just makes them even more reliant on the gimmicks. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Ogregut]

3 hours ago, mojojojo101 said:

Oh, I agree.

What I meant was it seems slightly odd that doing damage and removing tokens happen at opposite ends of the phase.

It doesn't really matter I suppose... just feels odd.

Ah I see. Yeah I can't see any reason why you wouldn't remove the tokens after you've calculated the damage and I imagine most people will do so for ease of nothing else. 

The only thing I can think of it being as it is, would be so everything has a proper time and place to happen, should some strange rule interaction come up. 

[yukishiro1]

I guess in theory it saves a little bit of time since if something runs due to battleshock this way you don't have to spend the time removing the tokens down to 1 first, then remove the model and the last token, you can just remove the unit and all the tokens at once. Though when you're dealing with a system this heavy on bookkeeping it seems like it's a bit silly to care about that. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Ganigumo]

7 minutes ago, Ogregut said:

Ah I see. Yeah I can't see any reason why you wouldn't remove the tokens after you've calculated the damage and I imagine most people will do so for ease of nothing else. 

The only thing I can think of it being as it is, would be so everything has a proper time and place to happen, should some strange rule interaction come up. 

Slaanesh generates depravity at the end of the battleshock phase, would make sense for nurgle to generate summon points then too, plus it would make sense to have the disease tokens feed their summoning.

[yukishiro1]

Also, it's a bummer if this is replacing the cycle. The cycle is a really cool mechanic and it is one of the few times in history that GW has actually managed to nail the full extent of what Nurgle is all about in the lore - death and decay, yes, but also life, and, above all, the cyclical relationship of the two. Trading it out for MW tokens and more "6s to hit" mechanics doesn't feel like an upgrade in game design. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Indecisive]

7 hours ago, PrimeElectrid said:

between this and the custodes previews, sure feels like GW is in a phase of slightly overcomplicated/tedious rules

[CDM]

Confirmation from the Phil Kelly himself in WD. Kurnothi are a religion/culture of mixed races. I'm thinking potentially going to be AoS's version of Ynnari.

 

Soup time incoming? Sylvaneth, wanderers, and the rest?

[The Red King]

16 hours ago, CDM said:

Confirmation from the Phil Kelly himself in WD. Kurnothi are a religion/culture of mixed races. I'm thinking potentially going to be AoS's version of Ynnari.

 

Soup time incoming? Sylvaneth, wanderers, and the rest?

I like this but I think it's about as absolute a "this is not getting an army any time soon" that we'll get. "Could experience a rebirth of his own one day"

 

So they'll just go on being AoS exodites who always seem right around the corner.

Edited December 8, 2021 by The Red King

[CDM]

6 minutes ago, The Red King said:

I like this but I think it's about as absolute a "this is not getting an army any time soon" that we'll get. "Could experience a rebirth of his own one day"

 

So they'll just go on being AoS expedites who always seem right around the corner.

Yeah I'm fairly flexible convinced they weren't ever meant to be a main faction and likely haven't been worked on at all. Would like to see a warcry warband though!

[Neverchosen]

27 minutes ago, CDM said:

Confirmation from the Phil Kelly himself in WD. Kurnothi are a religion/culture of mixed races. I'm thinking potentially going to be AoS's version of Ynnari.

 

Soup time incoming? Sylvaneth, wanderers, and the rest?

One thing I really love about AoS is that it is really open for narrative purposes and conversions. I would be absolutely fine if the Kurnothi were depicted entirely as faun-like Aelven Hybrids. But the idea that you can run your old wood elves or even make your own human followers is exactly the type of creativity and open ended lore I love for this hobby. 

It also why that despite being somewhat anxious about cities/dawnbringers becoming a human only faction somewhere down the road, I know that overall most people will continue to run their themed and allied armies as simply their take on an allied, Duardin or Aelven City/ Dawnbringer Crusade

[yukishiro1]

I certainly hope they aren't AOS' version of Ynnari, given that Ynnari have got zero support over the last couple years and currently have rules that are borderline unplayable and that appear to be fundamentally incompatible with where they're taking the game in 9th (e.g. DE losing power from pain when they're not in a pure army). They feel like a failed experiment that only still exists on life support because it takes more effort to pull the plug than to keep the machine going. 😒

It'd be great to see Kurnothi as their own multi-racial faction, though, and that is something I can see happening in theory...but not for a long time in practice, they aren't in any of the leaks and the timeline suggests that there isn't room for another new faction beyond the ones planned until late 2023 at the very earliest, and more likely 2024.

Edited December 7, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Zeblasky]

3 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

I really hope they don't do this. The ork buggy and flier fixes were bandaids because they didn't want to try to actually balance the units, so they just strapped a limit on the amount of "broken" units you can take. 40k also has "the rule of 3" since at least last edition where you can't take more than 3 of a non troop datasheet in your army.
I absolutely hate rules like this on principal, skewed spam lists only exist because the units themselves are broken, so just fix the broken units.

Well, sometimes it's true, but sometimes some units become OP and hard to beat for other armies when spammed, while being perfectly fine in low numbers. It usually happens when an opponent simply does not have enough counters for it in his army, as taking enough of them would mean making his list too one sided as well. So, while I am all for good unit balance, army caps are a must in most game systems.

[yukishiro1]

The reason AOS can get away without army caps (I still wish it had them TBH for fluff reasons, but I get that my vision of AOS is not the same as the developers, and they clearly think part of the attraction of the game is the weird skew lists of 15 cockatrices that you're allowed to make) is that there's no toughness stat, so everything can more or less threaten everything else. In most games a horde of goblins can't rip a dragon to shreds, but in this game it can (well, could, at least, until save stacking became a thing - but even that is limited enough that you can't really do it on a whole army). 

[Copywolf]

Has there been any word about the Anvil of Apotheosis hero creation in 3.0?

[KingBrodd]

2 hours ago, CDM said:

Confirmation from the Phil Kelly himself in WD. Kurnothi are a religion/culture of mixed races. I'm thinking potentially going to be AoS's version of Ynnari.

 

Soup time incoming? Sylvaneth, wanderers, and the rest?

This is awesome, I love it. 

[LoonKing98]

This might not be the appropriate thread to ask but I couldn't think of anywhere else- by chance did anyone enter in the Black Library submission contest last month? If so did you get your feedback yet? Just curious. 

[Public Universal Duardin]

3 hours ago, CDM said:

Confirmation from the Phil Kelly himself in WD. Kurnothi are a religion/culture of mixed races. I'm thinking potentially going to be AoS's version of Ynnari.

 

Soup time incoming? Sylvaneth, wanderers, and the rest?

While AOS Ynnari are up there in my 'armies I didn't know I wanted, but now want' - Ynnari being my 40K army of choice if I would afford more than one setting of plastic crack(!) - I have to agree with the consensus that it is highly unlikely that Kurnothi will ever get an army of their own*. Although now I do wish I could afford make a Kurnothi themed Living City force...

*See you in 20 years when GW pulls them out for some nostalgia bucks and the future greybeards can with teary eyes talk about 'Warhammer Underworlds' like some today talk about Mordheim or Inquisitor. Or Chaos Dwarfs. Dagnabbit.

[Public Universal Duardin]

37 minutes ago, LoonKing98 said:

This might not be the appropriate thread to ask but I couldn't think of anywhere else- by chance did anyone enter in the Black Library submission contest last month? If so did you get your feedback yet? Just curious. 

I entered but have heard nada - a friend of mine shared they had received an automated rejection, so I expect to receive one in coming days.

[Neverchosen]

 Sorry if I am completely wrong here but it looks like Ynari are just a soup styled army with Eldar and Dark Eldar? I am not a 40k player and so I don't really get the connection between that blurb and what is presented on the website to be honest. Is it simply the idea of an allied force with a different faith than the core army?

The blurb makes this sound more like a Sylvaneth subfaction with potentially new model support and possible coalition options... is that what Ynari are?

Edited December 8, 2021 by Neverchosen