The Rumour Thread

[Grunbag]

5 minutes ago, Gareth 🍄 said:

From what I've seen so far I'm now more excited for 4th edition than any previous edition of AoS 😁👍🏻

I feel the same . I’m very hyped by 4th edition 

[Luperci]

3 minutes ago, Gareth 🍄 said:

From what I've seen so far I'm now more excited for 4th edition than any previous edition of AoS 😁👍🏻

I'm also pretty excited about a lot of the changes, honestly I didn't get the impression that magic was losing loads of flavour from today's article, we've yet to see any full spell lores it looks ok to me so far. The ritual points thing for priests is an interesting way to differentiate them from wizards too.

[Boingrot Bouncer]

15 minutes ago, MitGas said:

Btw: Why am I the only optimistic one here? I hate goody two-shoes and if magic sucks, my army will get hit the hardest! 😂

I am really optimistic about the new edition, so far I have almost no objections about the new rules we have seen. 

[Tonhel]

17 minutes ago, Boingrot Bouncer said:

You also need to remember that the Wizards get all the spells in the spell-lore, not just one spell. That means that most players have more freedom than before (except for a few armies) when it comes to choose spell.

And no more thinking which of my fungoid shaman that had which spell and cursing that I wished that it was the other way around...

I understand that view, but it depends if the spell lores are good and fun. But to me with CoS as one of my armies it seems that it is only losing stuff, first the 11 free cities are gone and replaced by 4 battle formations. Now it seems that CoS humans and Aelves lose their own spell lore. What's next, removal of artefacts for duardin, Aelves and human?

I don't really care about competive play and certainly not about tournament play or extreme balance or the battlescroll point adjustments if it is at the cost of losing options. In the old days GW was to nonchalant about balance, but now they are to focused on balance. It seems that the AOS team is way to concentrated on tournament play.

"And no more thinking which of my fungoid shaman that had which spell and cursing that I wished that it was the other way around..."

True, but with this line of thinking you can also scrap artefacts as the exact same problem can ocure as you described with the fungoid shaman. 😜

 

Edited April 19 by Tonhel

[MitGas]

2 minutes ago, Gareth 🍄 said:

From what I've seen so far I'm now more excited for 4th edition than any previous edition of AoS 😁👍🏻

Same here! I really thought AoS 3 was a downgrade compared to 2nd ed as it just felt like that with some extra rules slapped on and 4 looks to change quite a bit for the better as they really went back to square one and rethought some things. 
 

Ultimately I‘d like a simple game with room for some tactical play in there and so far 4th seems to deliver that. Too soon to say for sure, none of us have played 4th but I really like what I see. I don‘t even care if Tzeentch got way weaker in the overall ranking, we‘ve been among the best for ages anyways (almost as long among the best in AoS as Thousand Sons were the absolute worst in 40k before they got their own codex 😂) bit I want simple, good rules cause my group is lazy as heck. AoS 3.0 killed their enthusiasm and I don‘t want more or new friends! 😁

[Ejecutor]

9 minutes ago, Gareth 🍄 said:

From what I've seen so far I'm now more excited for 4th edition than any previous edition of AoS 😁👍🏻

Indeed. Those little pieces look like we will get a nicely rounded edition.

[ScionOfOssia]

Yeah, pretty much everything I’ve seen thus far has looked at least good. I’m EXTREMELY positive on the Magic changes (Partially because I suspect the Boneshaper is getting Shardstorm as a shooting attack and this justifies buying the remaining Endless Spells to add to my collection). This has me optimistic, but you’ll need to check back in once we know the Index for the OBR and IDK. 

[Beliman]

19 minutes ago, MitGas said:

Why am I the only optimistic one here?

I'm with you. I can't wait to learn more about the game.

[Luperci]

1 minute ago, MitGas said:

Same here! I really thought AoS 3 was a downgrade compared to 2nd ed as it just felt like that with some extra rules slapped on and 4 looks to change quite a bit for the better as they really went back to square one and rethought some things. 
 

Ultimately I‘d like a simple game with room for some tactical play in there and so far 4th seems to deliver that. Too soon to say for sure, none of us have played 4th but I really like what I see. I don‘t even care if Tzeentch got way weaker in the overall ranking, we‘ve been among the best for ages anyways (almost as long among the best in AoS as Thousand Sons were the absolute worst in 40k before they got their own codex 😂) bit I want simple, good rules cause my group is lazy as heck. AoS 3.0 killed their enthusiasm and I don‘t want more or new friends! 😁

Slightly off topic but thousand sons seemed to me one of the more interesting indexes in terms of flavour and army rules.

[CommissarRotke]

7 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

the 11 free cities are gone and replaced by 4 battle formations.

they aren't gone though? The 11 Cities are now allowed to match up subfaction rules/traits and formations however you want to. Love Greywater for the blackpowder focus but want to set your army in Excelsis? Well, now you have the ability to make your Excelsis force the gunnery school or rifle garrison or however you want to tie it together.

I'm just a bit confused at this pushback in all honesty. It makes more sense logistically and lorewise--why WOULDN'T every COS have a detachment of gunnery forces or cavalry or magic?

Edited April 19 by CommissarRotke

[Ejecutor]

5 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:

Yeah, pretty much everything I’ve seen thus far has looked at least good. I’m EXTREMELY positive on the Magic changes (Partially because I suspect the Boneshaper is getting Shardstorm as a shooting attack and this justifies buying the remaining Endless Spells to add to my collection). This has me optimistic, but you’ll need to check back in once we know the Index for the OBR and IDK. 

What about new endless spells? Didn't Whitefang Jr say something like that?

[Luperci]

1 minute ago, CommissarRotke said:

they aren't gone though? The 11 Cities are now allowed to match up subfaction rules/traits and formations however you want to. Love Greywater for the blackpowder focus but want to set your army in Excelsis? Well, now you have the ability to make your Excelsis force the gunnery school or rifle garrison or however you want to tie it together.

I'm just a bit confused at this pushback in all honesty. It makes more sense logistically and lorewise--why WOULDN'T every COS have a detachment of gunnery forces or cavalry?

I think in an ideal world you could have, subfaction flavour rules, and then pick a battle style army ability, but we know by now that that's probably too much complexity to balance. And also idk if aos has the design space to come up with subfaction traits that would be equally compatible with all the army styles.

[MitGas]

4 minutes ago, Luperci said:

Slightly off topic but thousand sons seemed to me one of the more interesting indexes in terms of flavour and army rules.

For me they certainly always have been but after the wonderful time of the extremely broken Chaos codex, they were extremely underpowered for ages in the next codex. That was the time when I played 40k the most. I didn‘t care, I‘m not into Warhammer for winning my games (doesn‘t hurt tho), I enjoy losing as well, but it was certainly strange to suddenly field a really good army that often competed for the top spot with AoS‘s DoT! 😂

 

Going back to 40k is hard though now… the AoS rules are simply more fun to me. Still hoping that Teamkill will become better so that I can scratch that itch as well. 

[ScionOfOssia]

9 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

What about new endless spells? Didn't Whitefang Jr say something like that?

God I hope so, those models are great and can change how you play. 

[Luperci]

8 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:

God I hope so, those models are great and can change how you play. 

Giving the factions that don't have any their own set at last would be nice

Edit: if that is happening what will KO get I wonder, since they don't have any priests or wizards afaik, don't think there are any other factions like that 

Edited April 19 by Luperci

[Peacaf]

46 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

Lol, you are baffling. 🙂

What we know so far is that 11 armies lost their additional spell lores. We will see how it will look like with the indexes and the first battletomes appear. But I don't see the benefit of limiting the spell lore choice per army instead of per hero or race. Like in CoS Humans and Aelves had their own lore.

It's not because I really like TOW, that I stopped playing AoS. My small group is still more AoS focussed. It's what they collected and played the last couple of years. Half them never played Warhammer before. I can't magical expect them to drop AoS, certainly when a new edition is coming with beautiful mini's.

Useless foot heroes was a reall problem during AoS. All foot heroes having more or less the same stats and avoiding combat. My Chaos Lord is a coward in AoS.

And baffling about casting the same two or three OP spells is laughable. It seems to me you only played/play AoS and nothing else and have no clue how other games play.

 

Obviously I'm exaggerating, but when push came to shove, if your sorcerer could choose the Purple Sun from the Spell Lore of Death, you chose it. Like 13, like Wall of Fire or Sword of Rhuin and so many other OP spells.

The rest was in the background because the dice pull went to the powerful spells and you even changed them for the basic one.

Which by the way, were chosen at random...

[Tonhel]

28 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

they aren't gone though? The 11 Cities are now allowed to match up subfaction rules/traits and formations however you want to. Love Greywater for the blackpowder focus but want to set your army in Excelsis? Well, now you have the ability to make your Excelsis force the gunnery school or rifle garrison or however you want to tie it together.

I'm just a bit confused at this pushback in all honesty. It makes more sense logistically and lorewise--why WOULDN'T every COS have a detachment of gunnery forces or cavalry or magic?

We don't know what will be possible with CoS, nor what it means for the duardin, aelves and humans command traits, orders, artefacts.

What we do know that the 11 free cities are gone, which are replaced by 4 battle formations, With the SCE we know they have 4 battle traits and 4 formations. Will 4+4 be enough to replace all the cool stuff CoS 3rd edition had. I don't know.

So 11 free cities gone and one lore per army. While there was one for humans and aelves and prayers for duardin and the cool Lethis ability.

With their focus on streamlining and speeding up the game am I a bit worried what this will do with CoS. I can't say the signals that the greenskins are getting is very encouraging.

+ foot heroes still seem to be super squishy. 

Edited April 19 by Tonhel

[Tonhel]

8 minutes ago, Peacaf said:

Obviously I'm exaggerating, but when push came to shove, if your sorcerer could choose the Purple Sun from the Spell Lore of Death, you chose it. Like 13, like Wall of Fire or Sword of Rhuin and so many other OP spells.

The rest was in the background because the dice pull went to the powerful spells and you even changed them for the basic one.

Which by the way, were chosen at random...

WAAC players and tournament players do that. 

When you play with friends you build a thematic list and enjoy the experience. You are both responsible for a nice evening of gaming. Be it one of the past editions of warhammer, TOW or AoS. Maybe I am just lucky with my friends, but we never abuse options to WAAC.

Now it seems more and more options are taken away because somethings are abused by WAAC players.

I am fine with a lots of things that we have seen with the previews, but why limiting one spell lore per army and not per wizard. Certainly when that army contains different races or beliefs.

 

 

Edited April 19 by Tonhel

[Luperci]

4 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

WAAC players and tournament players do that. 

When you play with friends you build a thematic list and enjoy the experience. You are both responsible for a nice evening of gaming. Be it one of the past editions of warhammer, TOW or AoS. Maybe I am just lucky with my friends, but we never abuse options to WAAC.

Now it seems more and more options are taken away because somethings are abused by WAAC players.

I am fine with a lots of things that we have seen with the previews, but why limiting one spell lore per army and not per wizard. Certainly when that army contains different races or beliefs.

 

 

Tbf if the design was better, fluff should be reflected in the rules and reward you for playing thematic armies, but we'll see I suppose 

[MitGas]

1 hour ago, Gitzdee said:

I am sorry. I have been defending Bonesplitterz for years and GW just smashed that belief with a chainsword.

Yeah, that’s fair, I get that. I’d be super pissed if I collected one of those factions and frankly it’s a crappy move to put it nicely. But hasn‘t much to do with the rules previews per se, which seem decent so far. 
 

GW screwed up by turning part of factions into their own factions at first and keeping others around when they didn‘t have the will to support them long-term. I just think they had to cause else the nuking of WHFB would‘ve been even worse. 

[Beliman]

38 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

What we do know that the 11 free cities are gone, which are replaced by 4 battle formations, With the SCE we know they have 4 battle traits and 4 formations. Will 4+4 be enough to replace all the cool stuff CoS 3rd edition had. I don't know.

That's in their packs, aka, Index. Wait for the battletome first, and then whe can start complaining

[Baron Klatz]

57 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

they aren't gone though? The 11 Cities are now allowed to match up subfaction rules/traits and formations however you want to. Love Greywater for the blackpowder focus but want to set your army in Excelsis? Well, now you have the ability to make your Excelsis force the gunnery school or rifle garrison or however you want to tie it together.

I'm just a bit confused at this pushback in all honesty. It makes more sense logistically and lorewise--why WOULDN'T every COS have a detachment of gunnery forces or cavalry or magic?

I had a talk about this on Twitter before. CoS could also get Astra Militarum commands & “Doctrines” to help show their cities & realm diversities.

 

[Still-young]

Looks like Dark Sphere have come through with my Darkoath box 🤙🏻 Wasn’t overly worried as the AoS ones don’t tend to disappear in 30 seconds but I’m probably driving at 10am tomorrow morning so at least I won’t have to explain to the police why I was on my phone…

[EntMan]

57 minutes ago, Luperci said:

Giving the factions that don't have any their own set at last would be nice

Edit: if that is happening what will KO get I wonder, since they don't have any priests or wizards afaik, don't think there are any other factions like that 

I don't think the Gargants have priests or wizards either?

[Asbestress]

Just now, EntMan said:

I don't think the Gargants have priests or wizards either?

King Brodd is a priest.