The Rumour Thread

[The Lost Sigmarite]

22 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

Wiped a unit of rockguts thanks to battleshock last week. Dude had no cp left so he lost the last three. That's 170pts on one dice roll. Hugely impactful.

Another argument against it. Would you like to lose that many points on one single dice roll ?

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

5 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Melee weapon ranges (I assume you mean the reach here) aren't really a holdover from whfb, but more an implementation from skirmish games without rules or additions to make the ranges impactful. (like, for example, the ability to hit enemies without being able to be hit back. The addition of pile in and ending a charge within 0.5" makes this moot)

IMO, melee weapon ranges were a mechanic introduced to capture something like WHFB's number of fighting ranks in AoS. But, at least for me personally, I don't think that implementation was ever very fun. It was always fiddly to measure ranges from individual models, as opposed to just looking at your unit and going "spears -> 2 ranks fight" like in WHFB.

[Gareth 🍄]

I like that rumour about knowing more spells, the current way of choosing spells always felt a bit overly restrictive to me.

[PraetorDragoon]

1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

IMO, melee weapon ranges were a mechanic introduced to capture something like WHFB's number of fighting ranks in AoS. But, at least for me personally, I don't think that implementation was ever very fun. It was always fiddly to measure ranges from individual models, as opposed to just looking at your unit and going "spears -> 2 ranks fight" like in WHFB.

True at that. It didn't work the way they wanted to, as the recent update to 2" melee ranges and the pervious ghb rules for fighting in multiple ranks can attest to. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

5 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

Linking everything to a colour and shape is either going to be very helpful or the exact opposite. Can definitely see a situation where it ends up even more confusing.

The stealth reason for this is probably to save money on translations again. It's why they use symbols for Warcry and Kill Team, and in warscroll cards.

But hopefully it also makes rules easier to read at a glance.

[GloomkingWortwazi]

2 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

The stealth reason for this is probably to save money on translations again. It's why they use symbols for Warcry and Kill Team, and in warscroll cards.

But hopefully it also makes rules easier to read at a glance.

Yeah, it should be fine. Look at MTG as an example; icons, colours, keywords, etc. and for regular players it's easily remembered and comfortable to use.

[The Lost Sigmarite]

7 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

Combat range change is good. Think the objective change, both going to 3" control and an actual physical marker is going to be pretty impactful.

I like this too. It seems like “you get to pile in = you get to fight = you get to contest the objective.” Simple, effective, makes sense.

8 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

Linking everything to a colour and shape is either going to be very helpful or the exact opposite. Can definitely see a situation where it ends up even more confusing.

I think GW is aware of this and whatever symbols they show, it will be readable and not some tiny slop of pixels. 

[PraetorDragoon]

5 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

The stealth reason for this is probably to save money on translations again. It's why they use symbols for Warcry and Kill Team, and in warscroll cards.

But hopefully it also makes rules easier to read at a glance.

Hopefully not like warcry, as I find those icons hard to differentiate. One day I'll see at a glance the difference between leader and elite.

[Grungnisson]

9 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:

Another argument against it. Would you like to lose that many points on one single dice roll ?

On the other hand, it was a valid mechanic that could help underpowered units against stronger opponents (if they didn't have a ridiculous Bravery). It was a useful mechanic, when it worked, so hopefully its removal will be compensated somehow. 

[Vaellas]

5 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Has anybody heard anything about the Vanguard boxes? Do we know if they are just going to be rebranded or have the contents changed?

When I spoke about it in store I was told not entirely sure yet so it may be good to wait and see in case of buying a Vanguard box and finding out later it's changed contents for Spearhead.

[Ragest]

1 minute ago, Grungnisson said:

On the other hand, it was a valid mechanic that could help underpowered units against stronger opponents (if they didn't have a ridiculous Bravery). It was a useful mechanic, when it worked, so hopefully its removal will be compensated somehow. 

40k's approach is better I guess.

You lose your new battleshock roll? Ok, you can't contest objectives or receive commands, but your nice painted minis are still there in the table.

[RyantheFett]

12 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:

This. It never felt very impactful to me.

Oh it was very impactful to me. I can't tell you the number of games that I lost because had to do a battle shock test for like one guy dead and then roll like a 11 lol.

Glad it is gone

[Jagged Red Lines]

28 minutes ago, Cdance93 said:

Don't think it was "personal", I was pointing out you've made several back-handed comments in recent times and was using that to explain the most recent one. Not sure why that is bizzare?

Who gives a ******? We don't all need to be cheerleaders. People should be encouraged to think critically, and a ranged of different nuanced opinions shouldn't be framed in such a black and white way.

[Cdance93]

1 minute ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

Who gives a ******? We don't all need to be cheerleaders. People should be encouraged to think critically, and a ranged of different nuanced opinions shouldn't be framed in such a black and white way.

While I realize I made a snarky comment ( I apologize for that @Grungnisson) It was based off of someone asking why? he answered a certain way and I gave an overly curt and hasty response. Not my best moment, but thats where my head was at.

I've seen him making backhanded comments about the way GW has been operating and rolled with it incorrectly.

[Jagged Red Lines]

20 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:

Another argument against it. Would you like to lose that many points on one single dice roll ?

I'm not in favour of it. I'm just stressing that it wasn't a nothing burger.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

9 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

On the other hand, it was a valid mechanic that could help underpowered units against stronger opponents (if they didn't have a ridiculous Bravery). It was a useful mechanic, when it worked, so hopefully its removal will be compensated somehow. 

In my personal experience, the coolest, biggest guys were always the one with the highest bravery. Underpowered units like grots, rats and normal humans were usually the ones that suffered. In fact, they got doubly hurt by both having worse bravery and losing higher numbers than elite units.

[Beliman]

I always envisioned Bravery as a "save roll" for special attacks, instead of a phase with a check to win more or ignore the whole phase. Something like Malifaux, magic and pshiquic attacks can only be "saved" by Willpower, and other attacks can only be resisted by Defense.

[Cdance93]

Surely this article puts to bed the BOC squat rumors by saying every faction gets an index?

[Ferban]

4 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

In my personal experience, the coolest, biggest guys were always the one with the highest bravery. Underpowered units like grots, rats and normal humans were usually the ones that suffered. In fact, they got doubly hurt by both having worse bravery and losing higher numbers than elite units.

This is so true.  I felt like Bravery was typically quite low on the units that were already taking more losses.  Grots, rats, etc.  Zombies or skeletons might die a lot, but with a 10 bravery, they didn't lose as much to battleshock.  But a squig hopper has a bravery of 4.  So when even one died, you were fairly likely to lose more wounds to battleshock.  Which makes those units really underpowered.  You are paying points for 20 wounds in a 10-man unit.  But in reality, you're only absorbing about half that (or less) as many of your wounds run away without taking any damage. 

I think nearly any change here would be positive. 

[RyantheFett]

4 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

In my personal experience, the coolest, biggest guys were always the one with the highest bravery. Underpowered units like grots, rats and normal humans were usually the ones that suffered. In fact, they got doubly hurt by both having worse bravery and losing higher numbers than elite units.

Then you get stuff like the death factions that had crazy high bravery and pretty much allowed them to ignore those checks.

It was a mechanic that only hurt a select few factions.

[ScionOfOssia]

19 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

On the other hand, it was a valid mechanic that could help underpowered units against stronger opponents (if they didn't have a ridiculous Bravery). It was a useful mechanic, when it worked, so hopefully its removal will be compensated somehow. 

Yeah, RN it feels like my Bonereapers won’t really be able to contest against Horde armies- Who cares about killing 30 Zombies when my opponent still outweighs my Mortek Guard with the ones left? Or my 20 Namarti Thralls kill 40 Clanrats but still get outweighed by the remainder? I need to see the new version, because it could very much be punishing for Elite armies. 

[Luperci]

1 minute ago, Cdance93 said:

Surely this article puts to bed the BOC squat rumors by saying every faction gets an index?

I can still see GW being sneaky and moving many units to legends in the transfer.

Also for bravery, the instant killing of models to represent routing never quite felt right. Also a very hard mechanic to balance because it could in theory be oppressively strong. I'd prefer a system where routed units can no longer take battle actions or receive commands except counterattacking in melee until you rally them back through some means.

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Just a note about some of the recent comment about peoples view. At TGA, we welcome all sorts of views and we do not expect everybody to be super positive about GW. HOWEVER, we expect any views to be in a courteous and constructive way and not just "GW SUCKS". 

BUT this goes both ways and just because somebody disagrees with you, means you should still treat them in a respectable manner. So a poke at EVERYBODY to be thinking about this. 

At the end of the day, this is a forum to discuss something we all enjoy. Lets make sure we all enjoy talking about it and not making comments that will wind each other up.

It's okay to not agree with each other or be positive about stuff. Just be NICE to each other and CONSTRUCTIVE with our criticism!

[Jagged Red Lines]

10 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

In my personal experience, the coolest, biggest guys were always the one with the highest bravery. Underpowered units like grots, rats and normal humans were usually the ones that suffered. In fact, they got doubly hurt by both having worse bravery and losing higher numbers than elite units.

Imo it's thematic for grots to run away if most of the unit is destroyed. It gets more problematic when stormcast paladins turn tail (bravery 7). 

[Ragest]

5 minutes ago, Cdance93 said:

Surely this article puts to bed the BOC squat rumors by saying every faction gets an index?

Every faction was going to get rules in broken realms, just that not every faction got rules