The Rumour Thread

[EntMan]

1 hour ago, CommissarRotke said:

Though with this older RE they're now saying the Engine was a Votann all along. So the rumours aren't guaranteed to be LoV, even if this hammer is.

A recent warcom article on Votann weapons said they have hammers, so I'm 100% this is a Kin hammer.

[Ragest]

3 hours ago, HollowHills said:

Skaven is a big ctrl + c / ctrl + v. That said I do think overall they will be fine. It's not an army I know much about ever since plague monk spam went away.

Rob said the same, I'm starting to get worried about all skaven stuff I bought

[Mutton]

34 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Rob said the same, I'm starting to get worried about all skaven stuff I bought

Didn't Rob also say AoS wasn't getting anything else this year a few months ago? I tend to take what that guy says with a huge pinch of salt.

[Ragest]

4 minutes ago, Mutton said:

Didn't Rob also say AoS wasn't getting anything else this year a few months ago? I tend to take what that guy says with a huge pinch of salt.

Yeah, he just talks about every random bit of info that he reads, legit or fake, so I never use him as a source, but we have another one now.

[Enoby]

24 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Rob said the same, I'm starting to get worried about all skaven stuff I bought

If it's true, it again brings into question the ability/management of the rules team. I do want to stress "management" because we don't know the reasons - it could well be deadline related - but it seems that AoS rules are pot luck on whether you get your faction seriously improved with new rules or if they just copy and paste. 

It's probably my most disliked thing about AoS - that the rules are of wildly different quality and passion behind them. The team have proven they can write high quality books and supplements, but some battletomes/suppliments feel like there has been close to 0 effort in even trying.  Note, it may well be because some deadlines don't allow high quality, which is a management issue.

For example, Anvil of Apotheosis 3e was a huge let down, basically being just a copy and paste of the GHB's old one without proper thought put into it (e.g. they've missed out entire factions and sometimes armies in the case of Slaves to Darkness). Someone spending more than ten minutes giving this a read over should have been able to produce something of greater quality. Someone spending a week or more of dedicated work could have produced an amazing narrative supplement. 

In a similar but less severe vein, you get Khorne's White Dwarf which is both uninspired and weak. Again, it seems like little care went into creating it.

On the other hand, you get really well written supplements like the Beasts of Chaos White Dwarf, which were creative and strong, breathing new life into the army.

And battletomes like Lumineth where, despite poor balance between warscrolls, was trying to be a strategic army with lots of options and tactics to choose from with some very strange (in a good way) warscrolls. 

AoS would be so much better of a game if the same care, time, and attention went into all battletomes and supplements and we didn't end up with haves and have nots. For currently weak books, new battletomes and supplements are equally as worrying as hopeful because it seems sometimes the writers just drop the ball. Not every attempt will be a hit, but there's a huge difference between "swing and a miss" and not trying to swing at all (e.g. copy and paste). 

Sorry for the rant, and I really hope the Skaven battletome rumours aren't true, but after the poor Anvil of Apotheosis it's something that's really been bugging me about AoS rules - just this sense of "how did anyone think this was okay?" that crops up. A mistake is one thing, and it happens, but some things are less like mistakes and more just a lack of quality control when it comes to the quality of the rules themselves.

I'd love an honest interview with the rules team to hear their opinion on these 'bad' rules. Not a cheesy marketing interview where it's all sunshine and rainbows, but a genuine explanation of how Slaves to Darkness slipped through the cracks of Anvil, or why are Slaangors, or does anyone know what to do with Khorne's rules? 

 

[Rachmani]

To be fair, so far the 3.0 books don't look that bad. Even more so, when compared to one another. Doesn't mean that Skaven have to look good. SCE, another book with a plethora of options was also underwhelming design wise.

[KarrWolves]

SCE is probably the worst Battletome released so far (in terms of flavor, not power) and it's not bad!

Nurgle and Nighthaunt are the best imo, they are now really unique and interesting.

If all Battletomes can be in that range it's fine by me (I'm expecting/hoping that Sylvaneth will be close to the latter ones, and unfortunately I think Skavens will be more Daughters of Khaine like: good but nothing very new)

[KingBrodd]

For the gamers out there, Xbox is having a massive Digital Sale on all Warhammer games.

[Maogrim]

I think there's also a point to be made about the validity of the Orruk Warclans tome. As I read it it contains a faction which is very creative and flavourful in Kruleboyz who are however being seriously limited by overly complicated rules and a lack of valid options (everyone plays just one of the three subfactions). Ironjawz are really strong but lost some of their previous options and rules. No one seems to play Bonesplitterz, and Big Waagh is a disappointing mess.

So while Nighthaunt and Maggotkin seem to have been buffed or expanded upon by their new tomes (and Sylvaneth look very promising as well so far), other factions like Fyreslayers, Orruk Warclans and appearantly Skaven have been weakened or limited. So 

What do Idoneth players think? I don't gear much about them since a glorious crustacean future never came to path. Are they better or more fun now, or just slightly different?

[pixieproxy]

30 minutes ago, Maogrim said:

I think there's also a point to be made about the validity of the Orruk Warclans tome. As I read it it contains a faction which is very creative and flavourful in Kruleboyz who are however being seriously limited by overly complicated rules and a lack of valid options (everyone plays just one of the three subfactions). Ironjawz are really strong but lost some of their previous options and rules. No one seems to play Bonesplitterz, and Big Waagh is a disappointing mess.

So while Nighthaunt and Maggotkin seem to have been buffed or expanded upon by their new tomes (and Sylvaneth look very promising as well so far), other factions like Fyreslayers, Orruk Warclans and appearantly Skaven have been weakened or limited. So 

What do Idoneth players think? I don't gear much about them since a glorious crustacean future never came to path. Are they better or more fun now, or just slightly different?

almost everything in the book is a viable option, there are multiple flavourful and powerful builds, nearly everything can be battleline(Just not all at once) and the options in the book have skyrocketed compared to the last few years of eels. I think Idoneth are pretty happy atm.

[Gitzdee]

15 minutes ago, Maogrim said:

I think there's also a point to be made about the validity of the Orruk Warclans tome. As I read it it contains a faction which is very creative and flavourful in Kruleboyz who are however being seriously limited by overly complicated rules and a lack of valid options (everyone plays just one of the three subfactions). Ironjawz are really strong but lost some of their previous options and rules. No one seems to play Bonesplitterz, and Big Waagh is a disappointing mess.

So while Nighthaunt and Maggotkin seem to have been buffed or expanded upon by their new tomes (and Sylvaneth look very promising as well so far), other factions like Fyreslayers, Orruk Warclans and appearantly Skaven have been weakened or limited. So 

What do Idoneth players think? I don't gear much about them since a glorious crustacean future never came to path. Are they better or more fun now, or just slightly different?

I dont think Bonesplitterz are that bad at the moment. Having lost all kinds of flavour and all the models becoming ancient i think is the reason they are less popular at the moment. I think Kruleboyz are easily "fixed" with minor tweaks or points adjustments. Big Waagh! is just a bonus soup list imo and Ironjawz are just fine. I dont think the book is bad but i think it suffers from being the first 3.0 book. The newer ones found a way of making more streamlined rules without losing all the flavour like Maggotkin or Nighthaunt. The theme and lore is all there but the rules kind of dont manage to reflect that imho. Just hope they dont end up like the Gloomspite Gitz tome over time. 

[Maogrim]

39 minutes ago, Iksdee said:

I dont think Bonesplitterz are that bad at the moment. Having lost all kinds of flavour and all the models becoming ancient i think is the reason they are less popular at the moment. I think Kruleboyz are easily "fixed" with minor tweaks or points adjustments. Big Waagh! is just a bonus soup list imo and Ironjawz are just fine. I dont think the book is bad but i think it suffers from being the first 3.0 book. The newer ones found a way of making more streamlined rules without losing all the flavour like Maggotkin or Nighthaunt. The theme and lore is all there but the rules kind of dont manage to reflect that imho. Just hope they dont end up like the Gloomspite Gitz tome over time. 

Yeah, I wasn't trying to link the lack Bonesplitterz' popularity to bad performances necessarily, although they appear to be worse than Ironjawz. I completely agree that it's mostly the ancient models holding them back. 

Kruleboyz are, in my opinion, being hindered by the souping. They could have been a really amazing link between the tricksy weirdness of Gloomspite Gitz and the raw destructive fury of Orruks had they been allowed to be their own faction with their own battletome. There's so much potential for new stuff with Kruleboyz that it's ultimately a little heartbreaking. One of the reasons I ultimately ended up selling mine although I really enjoyed lore and aesthetics. It's just not quite enough. Apart from heroes I guess.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Maogrim

[PrimeElectrid]

17 hours ago, HollowHills said:

Skaven is a big ctrl + c / ctrl + v. That said I do think overall they will be fine. It's not an army I know much about ever since plague monk spam went away.

Tell us about the treelord ancient!

[Scurvydog]

35 minutes ago, Maogrim said:

Kruleboyz are, in my opinion, being hindered by the souping. They could have been a really amazing link between the tricksy weirdness of Gloomspite Gitz and the raw destructive fury of Orruks had they been allowed to be their own faction with their own battletome. There's so much potential for new stuff with Kruleboyz that it's ultimately a little heartbreaking. One of the reasons I ultimately ended up selling mine although I really enjoyed lore and aesthetics. It's just not quite enough. Apart from heroes I guess.

I feel the same, although I am painting more up right now, just to do an underdog challenge really. They have this sort of incomplete feel like LRL before wave 2 (even though nobody uses those models...). 

They are very "top heavy" with most of their cool things being heroes, and others which hardly fits with the army at all, like the Sloggoth that by all means seems like a gitz model og also only used by Gitz 9/10 times. 

A GHB can fix them a bit, but does not change they lack some few key unit types. They have basi infantry, xbow dudes and weak chaff, all with poor saves and mobility and only 1 of them default battleline, resulting in almost 600 pts of mandatory battleline with only 1 option for xbow batteline. 

They do not have cavalry, "heavy" infantry or monstrous infantry to name some stand outs. Ironjwz of course suffer from a lack of variety as well, although they still feel a bit more "complete" in their playstyle and theme. All of them suffer from only 3 sub factions and limited spell lores and artifacts, also no endless spells or terrain pieces makes it so bare bones it almost feels like those additions to GHB we saw for armies going from 1st to 2nd edition. No idea why they decided to do this to orruk players, while even an army like Fyreslayers still get their own book. Ironjawz on their own should be plenty popular according to stats to have their own book.

 

[Maogrim]

11 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:

I feel the same, although I am painting more up right now, just to do an underdog challenge really. They have this sort of incomplete feel like LRL before wave 2 (even though nobody uses those models...). 

They are very "top heavy" with most of their cool things being heroes, and others which hardly fits with the army at all, like the Sloggoth that by all means seems like a gitz model og also only used by Gitz 9/10 times. 

A GHB can fix them a bit, but does not change they lack some few key unit types. They have basi infantry, xbow dudes and weak chaff, all with poor saves and mobility and only 1 of them default battleline, resulting in almost 600 pts of mandatory battleline with only 1 option for xbow batteline. 

They do not have cavalry, "heavy" infantry or monstrous infantry to name some stand outs. Ironjwz of course suffer from a lack of variety as well, although they still feel a bit more "complete" in their playstyle and theme. All of them suffer from only 3 sub factions and limited spell lores and artifacts, also no endless spells or terrain pieces makes it so bare bones it almost feels like those additions to GHB we saw for armies going from 1st to 2nd edition. No idea why they decided to do this to orruk players, while even an army like Fyreslayers still get their own book. Ironjawz on their own should be plenty popular according to stats to have their own book.

 

Couldn't agree more and would give more than one like if possible. Thorough analysis.

[Gitzdee]

I agree with the part that Kruleboyz should have been its own thing including Kragnos. Gordrakk would still be the final boss of his own army/faction. Maybe some day they will split them up. I am also guilty of using the Mirebrute Troggoth for Gitz XD.

[Beliman]

I'm 100% with @Enoby

I don't know the word to express myself, but I'm a bit "bored" (?) with AoS rules. Don't get me wrong, some of them are awesome and some mechanics are really good and straightforward, but others are just odd, without soul.

I don't know when, why or how it happened, but that's my reality with AoS. I want to like all of it, but every time I play another game, I see that there is something missing in the rules.

To give an example, I'm looking for HH 2.0 and even if I don't like some of their rules, I can see the work behind:

• I'm a hugh fan of Night Lords, and they are really good with Fear. -1 Bravery means A LOT when you have a lot of tools to force Bravery checks. Like shooting with a pinning weapon, that can make a unit unavailable to do some actions. That turns in to an strategy itself because you don't need dmg output.
• Move characteristic of 12 has a +2 bonus on charge. But a 13"M has a +3 bonus on the charge. Just a simple +1 Move means A LOT and White Scars (faction) gives exactly that! BOOM, +1 to move has become a faction trait.
• Emperor's Children don't need to "kill" other units, just "win" combat. You lose the combat if you lose more wounds than the enemy unit, but EC abilities can turn them in to good duelists. Forcing enemy units to hit them on 5+ or even on 6+ and then winning combat with their Vexilla (banners) and Living Icons (ability) without even scoring any wound to the enemy.
• There are not Mortal Wounds on the Heresy, but there is something called Instant Death. If a wound was caused by a weapon with double Strength than defending unit's Resistance, the model dies. You get the point, +1 to Resistance means a lot more when your average R 4 captain is hit by a Strength 8 powerfist. Your basic Hero could block that hit if it has R 5  (and yes, Sons of Horus Battletrait is exactly that).

That's just an example of another GW game that probably everyone in this forum will understand, because it uses a lot of rules from older editions. I'm not saying that we need tables, confronted characteristics, Armor Penetration (instead of Rend) or anything like that.

The whole concept that I'm trying to explain is that AoS seems to be limited in how can you achieve your objectives. I feel that I'm stuck with basic dmg output ("mega-gargant" check) and I need to know which enemy unit must die earlier. Everything else is about who can take objectives without losing too much in the process.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Beliman

[Scurvydog]

6 minutes ago, Beliman said:

The whole concept that I'm trying to explain is that AoS seems to be limited in how can you achieve your game objectives. In AoS, I feel that I'm stuck with basic dmg output ("mega-gargant" check) and I need to know what enemy unit must die earlier. Everything else is about who can take objectives without losing too much in the process.

I do agree to some extent. Playing mostly competitive matched play like I do, the game quickly shows some of these flaws, which some of those mentioned "haves" tomes double down on, as they force a very specific meta, while leaving some list types in the dirt for anyone who wants an ok chance in a take all comers singles tournament at least.

To take your night lords example the new nighthaunt sort of got this vibe going. Legions of Nagash previously also had some bravery bombs, with banshees, throne and horroghast. This playstyle can never be balanced though, as GW insists on the silly design of death and demons being bravery 10, everything involving this stat will always end up either pointless against these armies or crazy overwhelming against especially poor destruction with terrible bravery.

I do not play HH but my impression is that by all the armies being from a very similar baseline, it is much easier to balance around "flavor". You almost have the same armies copy pasted, with very common baseline values which are then tweaked to interact with each other in interesting ways around the core rules and this baseline template if you will. AoS on the other hand is all over the place with crazy armies and model lines which are in no way comparable to each other. This means there is very little "baseline" to go by and tweak, instead it is just one big blender, which in the end might end up creating odd lopsided fights, like IDK basically keeping the shooting meta in check by itself.

It might not then just be a core rules issue, but as some armies and factions are so skewed in some extremes, it creates less options for a well rounded army, as mentioned bravery is not something to play for, as it might work great against orruks but useless when you meet Tzeentch or OBR. Also armies with only ultra fast flying units like dragons or IDK, can simply engage right away whereever they please, which means the basic infantry dude has little influence on the game in regard to movement. There is then basically no point in all these gimmicks and potentially interesting playstyles, when the super hard and super fast method works so well.

I have recently picked up on Path to Glory with some friends who were bored of the competitive scene, that has turned out to be more interesting, as we are forced into bringing more well rounded forces. GHB 22 promises to bring more focus on the troops, if that is truly the case it might be more interesting again, instead of the super fast smash armies which aims to see who is dead by a potential turn 2 double turn.

[Enoby]

19 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I don't know the word to express myself, but I'm a bit "bored" (?) with AoS rules. Don't get me wrong, some of them are awesome and some mechanics are really good and straightforward, but others are just odd, without soul.

I understand what you mean, and it's really hard to put a finger on it and say "this is the problem". 

I'm also not saying 40k is better - I know that has loads of balance issue at the moment. 

I think AoS has some very interesting rules - Nighthaunt, Nurgle, and Sylvaneth all seem to be shaping up to have interesting tactics and ways to manipulate the game state without it just being "do damage". Whereas Big Waagh, as an example, just gives out +s as the game goes on (usually max by round 2), which sounds fine but after playing against it a lot it's very boring. Not just because the army is always on 2s and 2s so every unit blends into one, but also because command abilities and heroic abilities for +1 to hit and wound (finest hour) stop mattering very quickly. 

I do think that a lot of armies just don't play in a unique way because, design wise, they've limited themselves. Think about the warscrolls in your favourite army, and then think of how many hit or wound on 5s (or even 6s). Probably not many. It seems, for the vast majority of warscrolls, 4s are the lowest tier of hitting, and because 1s don't matter, there are three numbers on the dice the rules team work with. In addition, rend rarely goes above 2, and damage is capped at 6 (besides Skarbrand). This can leave warscrolls feeling quite samey stats-wise, and thus they rely on their warscroll abilities. However, AoS 3 seems to have been doing a job of cutting them down to be more basic. 

However, without a full overhaul, they can't just fix this by putting 5s and 6s as more common stats in new books because that would feel bad for them. 

It's very hard to fix, and I don't think I know any easy way to do it. 

I think there's more to it than just the stats though. Sometimes it feels like there are some rules you can't help but think "I could have done better". Not because of your own writing prowess, but because the rules seem so bland and uninspired. Anvil of Apotheosis was the most recent one for me, but Khorne's entire rules existance and the new Slaanesh book (especially the twins) are other examples. There's just sometimes this pervasive feeling of lower effort rules. Rules where it seems they were written very hastily, or without any love for the faction, or without enough thought on how it would play in a game. 

Anyway, I'm getting very off topic so I'll stop! Just hoping Skaven aren't badly done to.

[Ragest]

I miss CAs to make terrible heroes useful (yes, just like dok) and not having every warscroll in the game hitting and wounding on 3s or even 2s

[Beliman]

8 hours ago, Scurvydog said:

I do not play HH but my impression is that by all the armies being from a very similar baseline, it is much easier to balance around "flavor". You almost have the same armies copy pasted, with very common baseline values which are then tweaked to interact with each other in interesting ways around the core rules and this baseline template if you will. AoS on the other hand is all over the place with crazy armies and model lines which are in no way comparable to each other. This means there is very little "baseline" to go by and tweak, instead it is just one big blender, which in the end might end up creating odd lopsided fights, like IDK basically keeping the shooting meta in check by itself.

Yes, maybe the HH example is a bit more edgy than I thought. But let's look at Conquest: Last Argument of the Kings. Spires is a faction of some kind of space-elfs with necromantic powers:

• You can try to win fights with mindless hordes, overwhelming the enemy and ressurecting your own dudes. Classic Necromancer stuff.
• Or use that mindless zombies to "decay" the enemy, like a disease. Killing themself and the enemy units in the process, but remember that you can return models, unlike your opponent. That fits Nurgle!
• Or maybe a more traditional army with archers and your basic "zombies" completely cooperating, looking for flanks or buffs at the right time. Maneuvers, Heroes yelling orders, activating up to 3 units at the same time, etc...
• Or maybe powerful Heroes (imagine old Vampire Counts) inside blobs of wounds, removing entire ranks with each swing of their sword.

All this "types" of gameplay are from the same faction and the same 3 units. Heroes and abilities can completely change how your units behave.

Take in mind that Conquest only has One roll to attack (hit and wound merged in to "Clash") and one roll to Save! That's without taking in consideration any "bravery checks" (this units are not perfectly suited to play like that, so I ignored that strategy even if it can work).

AoS has a lot more going on, but it seems a lot less when you play it.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Beliman
grammar

[Scurvydog]

2 minutes ago, Beliman said:

All this "types" of gameplay are from the same faction and the same 3 units. Heroes and abilities can tcompletely change how your units are going to play. Take in mind that Conquest only has One roll to attack (hit and wound merged in to "Clash") and one roll to Save! That's without taking in consideration any "bravery checks" (this units are not perfectly suited to play like that, so I ignored that strategy even if it can work).

AoS has a lot more going on, but it seems a lot less when you play it.

Unfortunately it seems GW likes to have people to buy unique models for every single thing they might want to try. The best book that comes close to this flexibility right now would be soulblight, as that book has some really cool sub factions with a lot of meat on them. It is not as flexible on a per model basis, but a SBG army can be many different things, while you know what you are going to get when you see your opponent is bringing Ironjawz, as they play the same way all the time.

The 3rd edition tomes are even worse with this, as the sub factions are being completely stripped down to bare bones. This is the opposite direction of fun. Core battalions, battle tactics and grand strategies and all that, none of them really help encourage expenrimentation or variation unfortunately. I think what you are talking about could easily be achieved by the sub faction system, but with GW dumbing this down now to the absolute minimum, it seems to be further away than ever, that we will see fun alternative ways to use the same models.

[Ragest]

New sub factions are pretty boring.

[Ganigumo]

14 hours ago, Rachmani said:

To be fair, so far the 3.0 books don't look that bad. Even more so, when compared to one another. Doesn't mean that Skaven have to look good. SCE, another book with a plethora of options was also underwhelming design wise.

 

11 hours ago, KarrWolves said:

SCE is probably the worst Battletome released so far (in terms of flavor, not power) and it's not bad!

Nurgle and Nighthaunt are the best imo, they are now really unique and interesting.

If all Battletomes can be in that range it's fine by me (I'm expecting/hoping that Sylvaneth will be close to the latter ones, and unfortunately I think Skavens will be more Daughters of Khaine like: good but nothing very new)

This is a result of the modular design direction of aos3. Pretty much every book so far went for a modular design (where every piece in the army is good on its own, pieces are interchangeable, aka modular). By going for modular design you need to give up on linear synergies and weaken combos because the individual pieces are already worth taking without them. Its not bad design, but not every book should be using it, stormcast in particular shouldn't because modular design is harder for new players to wrap their heads around, and because they have too many warscrolls to create a niche for every unit.

3 hours ago, Iksdee said:

I dont think Bonesplitterz are that bad at the moment. Having lost all kinds of flavour and all the models becoming ancient i think is the reason they are less popular at the moment. I think Kruleboyz are easily "fixed" with minor tweaks or points adjustments. Big Waagh! is just a bonus soup list imo and Ironjawz are just fine. I dont think the book is bad but i think it suffers from being the first 3.0 book. The newer ones found a way of making more streamlined rules without losing all the flavour like Maggotkin or Nighthaunt. The theme and lore is all there but the rules kind of dont manage to reflect that imho. Just hope they dont end up like the Gloomspite Gitz tome over time. 

KB can probably reach mid tier with points adjustments, but they need a second pass at the rules to clean up stuff like the shaman, gobsprakk, skareshields, subfactions, and the allegiance abilities. They really should have tricks that buffs their retreating, or give ambush options reliably to really push the cunning part of the army.

3 hours ago, Maogrim said:

Yeah, I wasn't trying to link the lack Bonesplitterz' popularity to bad performances necessarily, although they appear to be worse than Ironjawz. I completely agree that it's mostly the ancient models holding them back. 

Kruleboyz are, in my opinion, being hindered by the souping. They could have been a really amazing link between the tricksy weirdness of Gloomspite Gitz and the raw destructive fury of Orruks had they been allowed to be their own faction with their own battletome. There's so much potential for new stuff with Kruleboyz that it's ultimately a little heartbreaking. One of the reasons I ultimately ended up selling mine although I really enjoyed lore and aesthetics. It's just not quite enough. Apart from heroes I guess.

I don't think souping is what held kruleboyz back, because they aren't really souped as the book provides an avenue for kruleboyz specific rules. It would've been pretty easy to give them a CA for retreat and charge, or an out of sequence retreat, or a rule that lets them deploy from the board edge, etc. Given that bonesplitterz basically just had rules stripped, and feel like alpha rules I think they just didn't put enough time into the book, maybe thats a souping problem, but its possible to put extra work in to make a book like that not feel rushed. 

55 minutes ago, Ragest said:

I miss CAs to make terrible heroes useful (yes, just like dok) and not having every warscroll in the game hitting and wounding on 3s or even 2s

Big agree on the CAs. Its a step back designwise and I have no idea who thought it was a good idea to strip heroes of the thing that makes them unique. pretty much all wizards and priests still get unique spells, why don't non-wizard/priests heroes get unique command abilities?

[madmac]

10 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Big agree on the CAs. Its a step back designwise and I have no idea who thought it was a good idea to strip heroes of the thing that makes them unique. pretty much all wizards and priests still get unique spells, why don't non-wizard/priests heroes get unique command abilities?

Agreed. I think a big part of this also is that by vastly expanding the scope of generic command abilities while also walling off various mechanics (EG no buff stacking, no rerolls, various other strict limits on command ability usage) they've put themself in a box where a lot of the old command abilities are either forbidden or redundant, and they don't seem to want to make the effort of creating new fluffy command abilities for all these heroes.

Instead most melee foot heroes are just blandly about as good in combat as each other now, and might have the ability to do something very slightly more efficient than a generic command ability, like using All-Out Attack once per game for free or having a different, non-stackable way to give a unit +1 to wound for one phase.