The Rumour Thread

[Scythian]

I just hope I can still play my Troggoth army once they make this change. 

[Ookami]

2 minutes ago, Scythian said:

I just hope I can still play my Troggoth army once they make this change. 

With new combat range of 3” Troggoths can be a very strong choice provided they aren’t too expensive in points cost

[Ferban]

This may be total hopium, but I'm strongly encouraged by the PtG system that looks to use all rules except battle tactics.  While I love matched play, it does feel sorta samey.  Your motivation is always just to stand in circles better than the other player (and hit the same BTs your army was built to hit every game). 

But PtG battelplans have been really good.  Storming castles, disrupting rituals, defacing monuments, running from or pursuing the other army, and so on.  Those narrative battles really cleanse the pallet and have some of the funnest moments.  I really hope they lean into that.  

[PraetorDragoon]

5 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

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. 😉

Wasn't that attempted with the half a year seasons for AOS and 40k? And then they went to full year seasons.

[Sception]

Just now, Scythian said:

I just hope I can still play my Troggoth army once they make this change. 

IIRC they already confirmed that the dawnbringer regiments and armies of renown will stay playable in 4e, though of course the rules of the individual units and the formations as a whole will have to be completely re-written.  So Troggoth army should still be at least technically playable (the best kind of playable), though there's no telling whether it'll actually work well on the table.

Likewise, I should still be able to simulate my long lost Legion of Sacrament by attaching the Hands of the Liche King to a Soulblight Gravelord army.

[Tonhel]

2 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Wasn't that attempted with the half a year seasons for AOS and 40k? And then they went to full year seasons.

This was previously done through free battlescrolls a couple of times per year. Point adjustments based on competive play. Now they make a book for it instead.

[michu]

6 minutes ago, Ferban said:

This may be total hopium, but I'm strongly encouraged by the PtG system that looks to use all rules except battle tactics.  While I love matched play, it does feel sorta samey.  Your motivation is always just to stand in circles better than the other player (and hit the same BTs your army was built to hit every game). 

But PtG battelplans have been really good.  Storming castles, disrupting rituals, defacing monuments, running from or pursuing the other army, and so on.  Those narrative battles really cleanse the pallet and have some of the funnest moments.  I really hope they lean into that.  

I agree so much. "Control the generic objective" was always the most boring way to play for me.

[Ejecutor]

22 minutes ago, Ferban said:

This may be total hopium, but I'm strongly encouraged by the PtG system that looks to use all rules except battle tactics.  While I love matched play, it does feel sorta samey.  Your motivation is always just to stand in circles better than the other player (and hit the same BTs your army was built to hit every game). 

But PtG battelplans have been really good.  Storming castles, disrupting rituals, defacing monuments, running from or pursuing the other army, and so on.  Those narrative battles really cleanse the pallet and have some of the funnest moments.  I really hope they lean into that.  

IMO tournaments just should be a mix of all the systems. Narrative and matched. Roll a dice for both of the players, then you get what kind of game you are going to face.

[Skreech Verminking]

30 minutes ago, michu said:

I agree so much. "Control the generic objective" was always the most boring way to play for me.

Me looking at these cool objective markers I bought for 40k, and after having read that article

[michu]

Never liked those markers too. I prefer objectives that are actual objects.

Edited March 28 by michu

[AquaRegis]

42 minutes ago, Sception said:

IIRC they already confirmed that the dawnbringer regiments and armies of renown will stay playable in 4e, though of course the rules of the individual units and the formations as a whole will have to be completely re-written.  So Troggoth army should still be at least technically playable (the best kind of playable), though there's no telling whether it'll actually work well on the table.

Likewise, I should still be able to simulate my long lost Legion of Sacrament by attaching the Hands of the Liche King to a Soulblight Gravelord army.

I'm really hope that GW expands on regiments of renown and add more ways to customize your army, or have unique niche play styles. 

Troggs troggoth Herd is honestly the most fun I've had playing a game of AOS.

[Ejecutor]

15 minutes ago, michu said:

Never liked those markers too. I prefer objectives that are actual objects.

[Aleser]

So there wont be magic in Sperhead mode? How does wizard units work there then

[Landohammer]

25 minutes ago, michu said:

Never liked those markers too. I prefer objectives that are actual objects.

So the issue that 40k ran into at the launch of 10th was they made objectives occupy space. But this created issues with larger models where they couldn't reach their intended targets in combat, or in some cases couldn't actually navigate past the objectives.

I would actually love to have physical items to fight over rather than the mats that everyone (including myself) uses nowadays, but there are some practical issues to that. 

[KarrWolves]

4 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

So the issue that 40k ran into at the launch of 10th was they made objectives occupy space. But this created issues with larger models where they couldn't reach their intended targets in combat, or in some cases couldn't actually navigate past the objectives.

I would actually love to have physical items to fight over rather than the mats that everyone (including myself) uses nowadays, but there are some practical issues to that. 

Didn't they actually change it afterwards because it created too many issues?

[Neverchosen]

I like the idea that the system is designed in a way that permits degrees of complexity. However, I also feel like there is something obscuring about the way they create a numbered list that feels like a hierarchy for rules. 

Still I think there is a lot of promise with the idea even if it amounts to simply them admitting that you can have fun with the game even if you strip away some of the more nuanced rules which has always been the truth for introductory games.

[Tonhel]

5 minutes ago, Aleser said:

So there wont be magic in Sperhead mode? How does wizard units work there then

Maybe there will be no wizards in spearhead mode allowed? It seems a bit strange as the diversity between the battletomes is also the magical power they have. But if the magic module is not added, how can the pointcost of those units be balanced if they can't use a big part of their identity. Biggest example is Tzeentch.

[Aleser]

Just now, Tonhel said:

Maybe there will be no wizards in spearhead mode allowed? It seems a bit strange as the diversity between the battletomes is also the magical power they have. But if the magic module is not added, how can the pointcost of those units be balanced if they can't use a big part of their identity. Biggest example is Tzeentch.

Well new spearhead for FeC has wizard. Also good example are Lumineth with every unit champ being wizard.

[Ejecutor]

6 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

Maybe there will be no wizards in spearhead mode allowed? It seems a bit strange as the diversity between the battletomes is also the magical power they have. But if the magic module is not added, how can the pointcost of those units be balanced if they can't use a big part of their identity. Biggest example is Tzeentch.

Separate battlescrolls for spearhead with its own flavourful details.

[Beliman]

15 minutes ago, Aleser said:

So there wont be magic in Sperhead mode? How does wizard units work there then

Maybe it's an "addon," like Andtor.

Always 2D6, unless you play with that magic module that you add a unique layer of magic rules.

[Sception]

12 minutes ago, Aleser said:

So there wont be magic in Sperhead mode? How does wizard units work there then

If I understand correctly, units have different warscrolls entirely in Spearhead (necessary to balance vanguard boxes that are otherwise like 700 points of dudes against boxes that are like 500 points of dudes - which boxes are more or less points are likely to change but chances are there will still be pretty big discrepancies).  If spearhead does use different warscrolls then it's easy enough to give wizardly units unique abilities similar to the type of thing they'd be doing with magic in a regular game.

[Landohammer]

7 minutes ago, KarrWolves said:

Didn't they actually change it afterwards because it created too many issues?

Yep I'm pretty sure they did. But to be crystal clear 40k 10th edition was received extremely poorly in my region. Tournaments and pickup games dropped off drastically. It was previously the dominant game system by a large margin 😬

So while i'm personally very optimistic about 4th, many in my group are quite concerned about how it will impact the playerbase. 

[Ragest]

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

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. 😉

No, erratas come 1-2 months after each book, including battletomes, ghb's, core rules and campaign rules, plus 4 sets of erratas each year in the quarters.

[Gaball Slaaneshi]

I really appreciate that idea. But I seems that Warcom Article wasn't very clear hoewever. In some discords, I see non-AoS Players talk about the fact we will need to buy 6 book for only PtG ^^' They doesn't understand that a module will be only a chapter in the corebook. 

[Ejecutor]

6 minutes ago, Gaball Slaaneshi said:

I really appreciate that idea. But I seems that Warcom Article wasn't very clear hoewever. In some discords, I see non-AoS Players talk about the fact we will need to buy 6 book for only PtG ^^' They doesn't understand that a module will be only a chapter in the corebook. 

Warlibrary: Age of Sigmar