The Rumour Thread

[Mutton]

Modular system = Play how you want

I'm glad GW themselves are stating this intent. Perhaps it will be enough to convince a slice of the player base that they don't always have to strictly use all of the rules to play a "real game."

[Tonhel]

58 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

The design of the game is like a modern videogame, it is not the old monolite GW design

With dozens of small dlc you need to buy. This approach seems the same but instead with lots of books. It's a bit funny that they say that they don't need to put an errata online but can instead sell another book thanks to this approach with modules. 😅

 

[Snarff]

Modular seems like the perfect solution. GW has both a beginner-friendly starting experience which you can learn step by step, and no complexity needs to be lost because you can choose which rules to play with. And especially battle tactics, which are a controversial subject, you can easily choose to play without.

[Ookami]

3 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

With dozens of small dlc you need to buy. This approach seems the same but instead with lots of books. It's a bit funny that they say that they don't need to put an errata online but can instead sell another book thanks to this approach with modules. 😅

 

Dozens of DLC have always been here. GHB, all this narrative stuff like BR, Dawnbringers, Thondia. So game will not significantly change, even if there is no online errata - it will still be in stuff we buy and we have been buying all these years (or found other ways to get it😉)

[Gareth 🍄]

They're already selling seasons books so this is a cleaner way to do it, makes that stuff more obviously optional too IMO.

Edited March 28 by Gareth 🍄

[michu]

20 minutes ago, Mutton said:

Modular system = Play how you want

I'm glad GW themselves are stating this intent. Perhaps it will be enough to convince a slice of the player base that they don't always have to strictly use all of the rules to play a "real game."

Unfortunately, not the sentiment I'm seeing. People are already claiming that they will be using GHB for pickup games and even narrative events.
Honestly, this looks to me like this:
Community: "We don't like this part of the rules, we want to ignore it."
GW: "Here, a way to do it more easily and officially."
Community: "Now we want to use everything all the time!"

[Mutton]

1 minute ago, michu said:

People are already claiming that they will be using GHB for pickup games and even narrative events.

There will always be a contingent that refuses to do anything other than that. Playing any tabletop game is a contract between two or more people to have fun--which includes discussing whether or not you want to use certain elements.

Don't feel bullied by people who suggest there's only one real way to play.

[Flippy]

15 minutes ago, Snarff said:

Modular seems like the perfect solution. GW has both a beginner-friendly starting experience which you can learn step by step, and no complexity needs to be lost because you can choose which rules to play with. And especially battle tactics, which are a controversial subject, you can easily choose to play without.

I'm also in favour of this modular approach, but not how they advertise. From the pictures, you can choose between:

- very basic mode (Spearhead);

- full rules without BTs (PtG);

- full rules with BTs (Matched);

- full rules with BTs and whatever the most recent craze is.

It does seem rather obvious to me that common approach will be from Spearhad straight to Matched. I am also very interested in how (or if) they will support and balance smaller games (750, 1000, 1500). 

[Jagged Red Lines]

10 minutes ago, michu said:

Unfortunately, not the sentiment I'm seeing. People are already claiming that they will be using GHB for pickup games and even narrative events.

It's because if you exclude magic from the game, it makes it wildly unbalanced and unfair for armies that rely on magic as a core mechanic. No problem if you're a khorne player, but tzeentch can get rekt. 

[Tonhel]

12 minutes ago, Gareth 🍄 said:

They're already selling seasons books so this is a cleaner way to do it, makes that stuff more obviously optional too IMO.

With the small difference that if we read it correctly that they will not put out errata's online anymore or an online battlescroll, but instead you have to wait until the updated module is available through a book. It could be a perfect solution if it was completly digital.

Now it's just  a means to milk some money out of the errata's that were previously free.

[michu]

You don't know how Tzeentch rules will look like in 4th

[Jetlife]

While I’m sure most people will flock to full version of the game with every section included. It does present an interesting option if tournament organizers want to mix things up. They could potentially pull a certain section and influence list building and decision making. I personally think it could be interesting to play a tournament that does not use magic or one that doesn’t use command points. Do I want to play like that every time? No. But for a one day tournament could be fun. 
 

I think it will be up to GW to promote that kind of play. They should be offering and promoting tournaments at Warhammer World like this to set the standard that it’s okay to play differently. 

[Tonhel]

Just now, Jagged Red Lines said:

It's because if you exclude magic from the game, it makes it wildly unbalanced and unfair for armies that rely on magic as a core mechanic. No problem if you're a khorne player, but tzeentch can get rekt. 

Exactly, I also wonder how they will balance it with all the warscrolls as playing without the magic module has certainly an impact on some armies. So a warscroll has to be balanced for a game with the magic module and for a game without the magic module.

[Tonhel]

2 minutes ago, michu said:

You don't know how Tzeentch rules will look like in 4th

:-D. So as strong as Khorne when playing without the Magic module?

[Ejecutor]

4 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

With the small difference that if we read it correctly that they will not put out errata's online anymore or an online battlescroll, but instead you have to wait until the updated module is available through a book. It could be a perfect solution if it was completly digital.

Now it's just  a means to milk some money out of the errata's that were previously free.

That's just just purely speculating. FAQs will be FAQs no matter the system.

[Jagged Red Lines]

2 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

Exactly, I also wonder how they will balance it with all the warscrolls as playing without the magic module has certainly an impact on some armies. So a warscroll has to be balanced for a game with the magic module and for a game without the magic module.

I actually like this new ruleset, aka Age of Modules, in that it offers an actual path for new people learning the game. You can start with the core rules only and then gradually introduce modules as you get more familiar. 

But the standard format will always be matched play rules as the most balanced, fair version of the game. Or else spearhead, if they manage to do it well.

[Tonhel]

5 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

That's just just purely speculating. FAQs will be FAQs no matter the system.

Yes, possible, but when reading this part. It does seem that they think releasing a book is a better way than releasing it online in an Errata/FAQ as it is done now.

Which was until now done through a free battlescrol.

 

Edited March 28 by Tonhel

[michu]

3 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

the most balanced, fair version of the game.

*Press X to doubt*

[michu]

I agree with GW but only in the "it's better to have a whole new rule instead of replacing a bit of the text in errata" sense. Not with the "pay for errata" sense.

Edited March 28 by michu

[Ejecutor]

3 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

Yes, possible, but when reading this part. It does seem that they think releasing a book is a better way than releasing it online in an Errata/FAQ as it is done now.

Which was until now done through a free battlescrol.

 

Is someone here really thinking they would print books for every errata they find? Really? The only possible way I find for them to do this is moving into completely digital rules, which would be awesome and would make a lot of sense to give you the full book with up-to-date data.

[Beliman]

56 minutes ago, Cdance93 said:

If i had to take a guess, "Command Models" will probably encompass anyone who can issue a command, so including heroes - maybe warranting a larger section

I still don't understand why need their own module.  They said that champions and all this stuff are going to be USR, so...

-Models X and Y can issue Commands to units ww 18/12"

- Models Z can issue Commands to their own units.

Put some flavour text, maybe an illustration, and you still end with a blank page. Am I missing something?

[Vaellas]

I think this new rule system seems great and makes a nice simpler way to help with learning especially when you nay have a group of friends where some may find some aspects harder than other to grasp at the start so tailor the game for who you are playing with and modules make that more simple. Also with that they mentioned there would be more modules to swap in and out as time goes by. Sure you can pick and choose technically now, but a module system is just a lot more simple for everyone especially if someone finds a lot of it a bit technical at the start when explaining to them.

[Jagged Red Lines]

7 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I still don't understand why need their own module.

It'll probably be all command abilities too. 

[Sception]

1 hour ago, Mutton said:

Modular system = Play how you want

I'm glad GW themselves are stating this intent. Perhaps it will be enough to convince a slice of the player base that they don't always have to strictly use all of the rules to play a "real game."

I think it's not so much 'play how you want- after all the different formats say which modules to use* (spearhead doesn't use any, so if you're playing spearhead then you don't use the magic rules in spearhead even if you'd like to; matched play uses all the modules, so if you're playing matched play then you do use the battle tactics rules even if you'd rather not).  Rather it's more 'if a ghb season wants to tinker with the magic rules it'll sub out the magic module entirely instead of layering changes on top of it, so you don't end up looking at two different rules texts to figure out how magic works'.

*yes you and an individual opponent could agree to change what rules you're using in a particular stand alone game, but that's always been the case, as evidenced by the fact that ime many local store pick up games were already ignoring battle tactics and mysterious terrain rules.

[Tonhel]

18 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

Is someone here really thinking they would print books for every errata they find? Really? The only possible way I find for them to do this is moving into completely digital rules, which would be awesome and would make a lot of sense to give you the full book with up-to-date data.

We will see 🙂

Edit: it's not that they now do monthly FAQ/Errata's/battlescrolls, it's 2-3 times a year? Perfect doable for GW to replace it with a book instead. 😉

Edited March 28 by Tonhel