The Rumour Thread

[Grungnisson]

58 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

Then the castellite formation makes no sense at all. I don't agree with you here.

Current? No. Have you got any proven information if it still exists in the 4th Ed? 

[Grungnisson]

49 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Let me tell you about Kharadron Overlords...

...hitting again on 4+, with range reduced to 18" at most and no Shoot in Combat on any of the boats, for example.

Likely? No idea.

Possible? Absolutely.

[Ejecutor]

10 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

Have you got any proven information if it still exists in the 4th Ed? 

Yeah. Common sense. They are not going to vanish something that is rebooting the army in less than a year.

[Vagard]

I don't understand why reducing the power of shooting in the game is incompatible with the castelite formation? Maybe the rule will change to allow castelite units to still shoot while in combat if they did not move this turn by the way. 

Edited April 19 by Vagard

[Beliman]

16 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

...hitting again on 4+, with range reduced to 18" at most and no Shoot in Combat on any of the boats, for example.

Likely? No idea.

Possible? Absolutely.

I don't know what to expect really.

Maybe "Shoot in combat" for our pistols? Some Anti-infantry (rend) for our volley guns?

Even with reduces rend and range, USR could be enough to make our weapons effective for some targets, and we have A LOT of weapons.

[Grungnisson]

22 minutes ago, EntMan said:

We know from leaked sprues that Skaven are getting at least 2 new ranged shooty units. It'd be weird if a horde army got the new shooty stuff if it really is being limited and scaled back overall.

Skaven is a horde army in the same way as Gloomspite Gitz are. Yes, you have access to horde builds (for now), but the breath of the warscrolls mean you can have lists of very different flavour. And I'm not denying that there won't be outliers. I'm saying I _could_ see the overall focus of the game going even more towards melee and movement and being even less on ranged combat. Not going to die on that hill, but this is my interpretation of the signs I've seen so far.

[Grungnisson]

32 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I don't know what to expect really.

Maybe "Shoot in combat" for our pistols? Some Anti-infantry (rend) for our volley guns?

Even with reduces rend and range, USR could be enough to make our weapons effective for some targets, and we have A LOT of weapons.

I would cerainly expect at least the Arkanauts to have SiC. I mean, let's not read too much into the mini design, but if you have a pistol and a cutlass, you're equipped to use both in close-qarters. Maybe SiC on infantry only, with Thunderers included? I don't know. But seeing how traditionally everyone else sh*ts on KO for causing them an NPE, I brace myself for GW over-compensating.

Edited April 19 by Grungnisson

[Luperci]

1 hour ago, Grungnisson said:

I could easily see GW winding down shooting in the game in general. Seeing the changes to the rules so far, previous removal of a lot of firepower from Cities and now from Stormcast, I think the aim is to make ranged comat less common and less impactful. Not eradicated, but limited across the board and more tightly controlled.

Models design and rules design have a big disconnect, if we see less guns it won't be because of a game design choice, it'll be an aesthetic design choice

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

I would cerainly expect at least the Arkanauts to have SiC. I mean, let's not read too much into the mini design, but if you have a pistol and a cutlass, you're equipped to use both in close-qarters. Maybe SiC on infantry only, with Thunderers included? I don't know. But seeing how traditionally everyone else sh*ts on KO for causing then an NPE, I brace myself for GW over-compensating.

Also, I would expect KO to get shoot in combat from their small ship guns, but not the big ones.

I think the overall design intent this edition is to get shooting to be more of support strategy for melee rather than the main game plan of a list. I think the supposedly reduced shooting range is evidence for that. Also, the new commands help melee units (counter-charge, power through) and encourage players to bring limited shooting (covering fire).

I hope that the warscrolls of ranged units are as good at defining unit rolls as the ones for melee units we have seen so far. "Ranged damage" should not be the extent of their niches.

[Vasshpit]

2 minutes ago, Luperci said:

Models design and rules design have a big disconnect

One thing they said early on for 4th was they took models and compared them side by side to others and were tweaking stats to better reflect this. 

As an example I'm hoping the Megabooss on foot become the absolute monster he should be. (+1 rend on an axe containing more plastic than a substantial amount of other foot heros.... psssshhh...😄)

Basically I'm hoping they reconnect models and rules representation more across the system. 

[Magnus The Blue]

Even if the Big boats don't get SiC, Power Through will mean you can scarper from combat the turn before against all but the biggest monsters.

[ScionOfOssia]

2 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

One thing they said early on for 4th was they took models and compared them side by side to others and were tweaking stats to better reflect this. 

As an example I'm hoping the Megabooss on foot become the absolute monster he should be. (+1 rend on an axe containing more plastic than a substantial amount of other foot heros.... psssshhh...😄)

Basically I'm hoping they reconnect models and rules representation more across the system. 

I hope they amp the Soulreaper and give him some form of sustain or wound negation then, because right now it feels like it’s having an unresolvable identity crisis between “Squishy Wizard” and “Frontline Combatant” and it’s trying to split the difference but does so in a way that means it’s not good at either. 

[ScionOfOssia]

Also, I can’t believe we’re not calling Magical Intervention “Unleash Spell”

[Vasshpit]

Just now, ScionOfOssia said:

Also, I can’t believe we’re not calling Magical Intervention “Unleash Spell”

Idk who started it but it's spreading!😉

[Clan's Cynic]

Magic and Prayers preview, along with a couple more Warscrolls. 

Wizards and Priests now functioning somewhat differently in their mechanics I think is really cool.

Quote

We’ll be revealing another new miniature on Monday, and learning more about battleplans, the General’s Handbook, and the battle tactics of the new edition.

Edited April 19 by Clan's Cynic

[Ejecutor]

27 minutes ago, Luperci said:

Models design and rules design have a big disconnect, if we see less guns it won't be because of a game design choice, it'll be an aesthetic design choice

I think this edition is completely the opposite. They are designing rules based on the minis look and lore.

[Ejecutor]

7 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Magic preview.

Manifestation Lore

Endless spells and invocations are still in the mix – but instead of spending points to add endless spells when constructing an army, you can pick a manifestation lore. This grants access to a selection of endless spells and invocations that you’ll be able to summon in battle.

Some factions will have their own Manifestations, while the current endless spells from Malign Sorcery and Forbidden Power are divided into thematic lores. You’ll find the infamous and ghastly Purple Sun in the Morbid Conjuration Manifestation Lore, for instance, alongside Suffocating Gravetide, Malevolent Maelstrom, and Soulsnare Shackles. 

Wizards and priests both can attempt to use the Banish Manifestation ability to expunge these autonomous arcane forms. There are more ways to interact with these conjurations, which we’ll cover in more detail next week.

Edited April 19 by Ejecutor

[Ookami]

Am I correct that now you either select some normal lore or endless spells/invocations lore per army. So you can't further mix endless spells with normal spells anymore?

[Luperci]

9 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

I think this edition is completely the opposite. They are designing rules based on the minis look and lore.

I meant that models are designed far in advance of rules being written and rules writers don't have an input on model design

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 minute ago, Ookami said:

Am I correct that now you either select some normal lore or endless spells/invocations lore per army. So you can't further mix endless spells with normal spells anymore?

It does not say this in the article. I would assume you get one each of spell, prayer and manifestation by default.

[Grunbag]

Anyone else noticed there is no longer orruk warclan keyword ? 

[Ejecutor]

1 minute ago, Luperci said:

I meant that models are designed far in advance of rules being written and rules writers don't have an input on model design

Why not? If the minis are done far in advance, as you said, they could easily have access to the final model render.

[Chikout]

3 minutes ago, Ookami said:

Am I correct that now you either select some normal lore or endless spells/invocations lore per army. So you can't further mix endless spells with normal spells anymore?

I think manifestation lores are a distinct thing rather than a type of spell lore so you can probably take both. 

[Ookami]

2 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

It does not say this in the article. I would assume you get one each of spell, prayer and manifestation by default.

It actually says that:

Endless spells and invocations are still in the mix – but instead of spending points to add endless spells when constructing an army, you can pick a manifestation lore. This grants access to a selection of endless spells and invocations that you’ll be able to summon in battle. 

Which I understood as endless spells will have their own lore, which you also pick. But do you pick it instead or in addition - yeah, that's the question. I think it's too powerful to pick both and players should opt for one of them. Maybe thematic endless spells will be included in one of the army lores, but who knows.

[Luperci]

2 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

Why not? If the minis are done far in advance, as you said, they could easily have access to the final model render.

from what I've heard that's just not how GW works, if the rules writers want less guns, they'll make them weaker, not stopping new models from having guns