The Rumour Thread

[Ejecutor]

1 hour 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 could be wrong, but the talk was about new generic ones.

[Ejecutor]

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

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. 

Subfactions are not gone. They will be represented and each battalion could be from one city.

[ScionOfOssia]

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

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. 

Sure, except we also don't know anything about what anyone gets besides the battle traits of the Stormcast and like, 6 dudes- We literally don't know enough to say what they do or do not get.

[novakai]

While they are largely a 40K channel,  Poorhammer recently did an interesting show about 40K detachment the may give people insight on how AoS will go with Formation. They also really nail what makes a good or bad detachment, do they bring play and versatility to all aspect of an army and some of the inequity that happens when codexes are release.

Edited April 19 by novakai

[ArtistDog]

Add me to the chorus of people really excited for 4th Edition both in rules & models! 

On another topic, I've been painting some Sacrosanct SCE while I've got the interest and I'd forgotten how poorly suited to speedpaints they are with the all of big flat cloth surfaces. I have to admit the sculpts from Dominion, Leviathan, & the upcoming Skaven all seem pretty well-suited to Contrast in comparison. I know some people dislike the amount of modeled detail on modern GW miniatures, but I do think it's an intentional choice to go along well with these paints and it does make sense to me. 

[Luperci]

10 minutes ago, ArtistDog said:

Add me to the chorus of people really excited for 4th Edition both in rules & models! 

On another topic, I've been painting some Sacrosanct SCE while I've got the interest and I'd forgotten how poorly suited to speedpaints they are with the all of big flat cloth surfaces. I have to admit the sculpts from Dominion, Leviathan, & the upcoming Skaven all seem pretty well-suited to Contrast in comparison. I know some people dislike the amount of modeled detail on modern GW miniatures, but I do think it's an intentional choice to go along well with these paints and it does make sense to me. 

I massively agree, I've found vanilla space marines actually pretty hard to go from beginner to intermediate level paint jobs just because of the large flat areas. They're great if you just slap down base colours but edge highlighting that stuff is way harder than a skaven clanrat or Tyranid termagant with lots of textures all over

[Gitzdee]

5 hours ago, MitGas said:

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. 

I agree, yes the rules have been really good so far. But to me rules are really not that important. At the end i am still collecting miniatures first. But ok, lets not dwell on this for too long.

I do like IJ and KB to potentially get their own tomes. Bonesplitterz were the faction that let Orruk Warclans make sense. Without them i dont see the need to keep them together. GW could also get nuts and push the rules to fit the theme of the army because they dont have to balance with the other orruk factions. I would really like for IJ to get some ranged options back though and maybe KB can finally get the cavalry they always wanted.

Edited April 20 by Gitzdee

[Chikout]

3 hours ago, Tonhel said:

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. 😜

 

I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the indexes. This is the fourth time  (that I remember) that GW has done a set  of rules for every faction at the launch of the edition. They have always been a reduced limited selection of rules designed to ride players over until their army book comes out. GW want you buying those books.

Being disappointed that this system is used rather than the old world system is a valid criticism but as soon as GW said the word battletome, it was pretty obvious that the battle packs were going to be limited. 

Since GW have chosen to give each faction 4 battle formations in a bid to be fair, it's certainly the case that the armies that had the most subfactions will suffer the most in this change. There will absolutely be fewer command traits, artefacts etc than there are in the current books. I'd expect at most two spell lores for each faction but I wouldn't be surprised if each battle pack only gets one. 

The good news is that the wait will be temporary. GW has a book they want to sell you. It will have more artefacts, more heroic traits, more spell lores, more battle formations etc. The bad news again is that the wait for some factions is going to be pretty long. 

As for the specific changes to how spells and prayers are chosen, I see reasons to be optimistic especially for cities players. Currently the human and Self lores only work on units from those races. If the whole army will be choosing one lore will we finally be able to use an Aelf hero to buff a human unit. Will a Duardin priest be able to buff fusiliers now? That would be cool. 

The other option is that some of these spells end up on warscrolls. It's not difficult to imagine a world where the tenebrael blades spell ends up on the sorceress' warscroll. I hope it's the former. 

As for the reason for the change, I think it changes the tactical equation. Currently if you have one wizard who knows one spell. You look at their lore and you choose the best one. Your wizard would then spend the battle trying to cast that spell or mystic shield. Not much in the way of interesting choices. 

With the choice of a lore there's potential for more interesting choices. With the removal of battleline restrictions it's good that players still have to make meaningful choices in the list building stage. It also lets GW write more powerful but situational spells that would never get taken before. 

With sub faction/ battle formations rules potentially being less interesting than before, I like the idea of a suite of 3-6 prayers or spells that you can use to lean into a particular theme or playing style. 

The old world style of lore per wizard gives you plenty of options but doesn't push you in a direction. Which style you prefer is a bit apples or oranges but I think the new system has the potential to be much more interesting than the old 3rd edition one. 

[novakai]

Actually, thinking about it maybe it finally time they are retiring the Firebelly and Lore of Suneater because of this magic change.

[Gitzdee]

20 minutes ago, novakai said:

Actually, thinking about it maybe it finally time they are retiring the Firebelly and Lore of Suneater because of this magic change.

We doing Aqshy again right? Lets just go with a whole new firebellies subfaction in the realm of fire.

[Dragon-knight77]

12 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

We doing Aqshy again right? Lets just go with a whole new firebellies subfaction in the realm of fire.

Funny enough the Firebellies do have a strong connection towards Aqshy and the Fyreslayers as per the Soulbound and the Warcry Fyreslayer lore

Quote

According to the lodge's mythic tales, Vulcatrix's essence likewise fused with the cleansing heat of Sigmar's Anvil of Apotheosis and the primal fury of the Sun-eater, god of fire worshipping ogors, as well as several other magical infernos. There are even dark rumors that it bonded with the hellish flames of the tyrant god Hashut.

Quote

A Red Sun once shone over Ghur, until Gorkamorka grabbed it, choked it down, and burped up flames so hot and fierce they formed the Realm of Aqshy. At least, so preach the Firebellies, the wandering Ogor mystics who worship the Gulping God in his aspect as the Sun-eater. At least, so preach the Firebellies, the wandering Ogor mystics who worship the Gulping God in his aspect as the Sun-eater. To join their cult, an Ogor must sear away their hair, tattoo their skin with chorsquid ink, and finally kill and eat a magmadroth

**********************************************************************

.Firebellies make surprisingly effective deterrents against Chaos, always eager to devour sources of Tzeentchian or Skaven warpflame, but they also have a more difficult time on Order’s side than other Ogors. The Fyreslayers, after all, don’t take kindly to the traditional Firebelly initiation ritual.

Don't see them being a full out subfaction but it defiantly a concept they could expand on and make like 2-3 units 

[Baron Klatz]

Yeah I think Firebellies can keep their place(and even be built on for a Aqshy unit*) despite just having Gut Magic.

Just move their powers to ranged flame attacks with the “can shoot in melee” rule(if Flamethrowers aren’t a universal thing) and one Spell Lore as a passive ability(like Billowing Ash reducing enemy hits in a bubble around him) and they can be extremely useful in the next edition.

Then if they get an Aqshy themed unit they can do something fun like if in range of eachother they “stoke the flames” to increase the effect of flamethrowers & ash passives.

*on that I forgot to post this in the “ideas for Ogors thread” but saw this fantastic Jungle Ogor army last month and would love them to be a new Gutbuster theme for both the hot tropics of Aqshy And all the vicious jungles(both natural & Realmshaper formed) in Ghur:

But also I hope while in Aqshy we stop by the searing arctic & crackling ice coasts of Cotha for a new Beastclaw Raiders Everwinter priest(pretty please, GW. Be cool. 🙏 ❄️)

 

[GrimDork]

Those Ogors are awesome! Thanks for sharing here.

[Ookami]

10 hours 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 

KO have aetheric navigators for at least unbinding enemy spells. And I hope they will remain spell in the bottle to have access to endless spells.

Also, I don’t know about allies system in 4th edition, yet if it is still there, we can access allied wizards and at least them taking common lores. 
 

Just a guess though.

[GrimDork]

I too am quite hyped for 4.0.

3.0 rules never grabbed me as much as 2.0. Admittedly I hardly play but I liked the simplicity of 2nd ed, it seemed like a refinement of the 4page rule set of 1st. 3rd seemed to over complicate things with a return to a comparatively massive rule book, but maybe that’s on me for not playing often enough to be familiar.

The minis are the main thing for me, editions come and go. The reality is that even if 4.0 is the best rules ever it will be gone in 3yrs time so I won’t worry overly. I love that in the community you still have people playing 2nd & 3rd ed 40k. I’m sure in time people/groups will play older editions, perhaps more so with the removal of certain armies.

[Ookami]

10 hours ago, Tonhel said:

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. 

Maybe GW will just delete dwarves and get dark aelves moved to DoK index?

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

6 hours ago, Chikout said:

As for the specific changes to how spells and prayers are chosen, I see reasons to be optimistic especially for cities players. Currently the human and Self lores only work on units from those races. If the whole army will be choosing one lore will we finally be able to use an Aelf hero to buff a human unit. Will a Duardin priest be able to buff fusiliers now? That would be cool. 

I personally suspect Cities will see something like "Spell Lore: Light and Shadow", containing Pha's Protection, Mystifying Miasma and Tenebrael Blades, which will then all still be locked to HUMAN and AELF in the individual spell rules.

[cyrus]

6 hours ago, Dragon-knight77 said:

Funny enough the Firebellies do have a strong connection towards Aqshy and the Fyreslayers as per the Soulbound and the Warcry Fyreslayer lore

Don't see them being a full out subfaction but it defiantly a concept they could expand on and make like 2-3 units 

I would love a firebellis concept army and we are in asqhy the realm of fire 🔥 

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

8 hours ago, Chikout said:

Since GW have chosen to give each faction 4 battle formations in a bid to be fair, it's certainly the case that the armies that had the most subfactions will suffer the most in this change. There will absolutely be fewer command traits, artefacts etc than there are in the current books. I'd expect at most two spell lores for each faction but I wouldn't be surprised if each battle pack only gets one. 

I must have missed the bit where they said four battle formations apiece for each faction. 

So that means Hedonites will go from three up to four? Oooh. Well, that's intriguing. I wonder what it'll be...? 

[KingBrodd]

7 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

We doing Aqshy again right? Lets just go with a whole new firebellies subfaction in the realm of fire.

 

7 hours ago, Dragon-knight77 said:

Funny enough the Firebellies do have a strong connection towards Aqshy and the Fyreslayers as per the Soulbound and the Warcry Fyreslayer lore

Don't see them being a full out subfaction but it defiantly a concept they could expand on and make like 2-3 units 

A Firebelly update would be so damn epic. All it takes is a new Priest and 2 new units or even just a sprue upgrade kit for the NEW Gluttons and Ironguts!!

[BarakUrbaz]

10 minutes ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

I must have missed the bit where they said four battle formations apiece for each faction. 

So that means Hedonites will go from three up to four? Oooh. Well, that's intriguing. I wonder what it'll be...? 

They could bring back the Syll'esskan Host, the original fourth subfaction for Hedonites. 

[NotBeastmanBob]

Does anyone know when the next Big Preview show is?

Beginning to feel an itch for new models 🤣

[Sprues&Brews]

We check out the new Darkoath Army Set in our full review and unboxing 

https://spruesandbrews.com/2024/04/20/slaves-to-darkness-darkoath-army-set-unboxing-and-review-warhammer-age-of-sigmar/

 

 

 

[Tonhel]

8 hours ago, Chikout said:

I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the indexes. This is the fourth time  (that I remember) that GW has done a set  of rules for every faction at the launch of the edition. They have always been a reduced limited selection of rules designed to ride players over until their army book comes out. GW want you buying those books.

Being disappointed that this system is used rather than the old world system is a valid criticism but as soon as GW said the word battletome, it was pretty obvious that the battle packs were going to be limited. 

Since GW have chosen to give each faction 4 battle formations in a bid to be fair, it's certainly the case that the armies that had the most subfactions will suffer the most in this change. There will absolutely be fewer command traits, artefacts etc than there are in the current books. I'd expect at most two spell lores for each faction but I wouldn't be surprised if each battle pack only gets one. 

The good news is that the wait will be temporary. GW has a book they want to sell you. It will have more artefacts, more heroic traits, more spell lores, more battle formations etc. The bad news again is that the wait for some factions is going to be pretty long. 

As for the specific changes to how spells and prayers are chosen, I see reasons to be optimistic especially for cities players. Currently the human and Self lores only work on units from those races. If the whole army will be choosing one lore will we finally be able to use an Aelf hero to buff a human unit. Will a Duardin priest be able to buff fusiliers now? That would be cool. 

The other option is that some of these spells end up on warscrolls. It's not difficult to imagine a world where the tenebrael blades spell ends up on the sorceress' warscroll. I hope it's the former. 

As for the reason for the change, I think it changes the tactical equation. Currently if you have one wizard who knows one spell. You look at their lore and you choose the best one. Your wizard would then spend the battle trying to cast that spell or mystic shield. Not much in the way of interesting choices. 

With the choice of a lore there's potential for more interesting choices. With the removal of battleline restrictions it's good that players still have to make meaningful choices in the list building stage. It also lets GW write more powerful but situational spells that would never get taken before. 

With sub faction/ battle formations rules potentially being less interesting than before, I like the idea of a suite of 3-6 prayers or spells that you can use to lean into a particular theme or playing style. 

The old world style of lore per wizard gives you plenty of options but doesn't push you in a direction. Which style you prefer is a bit apples or oranges but I think the new system has the potential to be much more interesting than the old 3rd edition one. 

Great post!

But we all know that some factions will have their battletome almost at the end of the edition cycle, so they are stuck with the index for a long time.

The index system is a great tool to do a rules reset, which I agree was needed with AoS 3rd. But they could have easly done a Grand Alliance book as TOW did with Forces of Fantasy and Ravening hordes, which are full armylists with loads of options and still arn't many pages. But it's a business thing, if they provide the full package at start, they can't sell a battletome each edition...

But the biggest problems I had was the meaningless of heroes, especially foot heroes. This doesn't seem to be fixed with the rules we know sofar. Infact if there are no specific rules for foot heroes, they will even die quicker as it seems that lethallity in melee is increased. The amount of melee damage a Krogixor unit can unleash against infantry is insane. 3 Slaugherpriests versus 3 Krogixors, is three very dead Slaughterpriests. 😉 So one Slaughterpriest will not live long in combat, while he has to be in combat range to use his abilities and ofcourse as a chosen of the god of war it fits thematic to be in combat, sadly he will be the first one to die.

TOW gives a lot of options. It's not only that. I don't agree with your claim that it doesn't push you in a direction First your wizards aren't clones, they are individuals, that dabt in different magic directions, an illusionist, a battle wizard, an elementalist and etc... It creates immense potential for background stories, to make your wizards unique. In AoS, the wizards of your army all studied the same thing. It's just wizard 1 and 2, or maybe even wizard 3. Nothing special about it. They all have acces to the same spells. Perfect replaceable and zero tactical choice for where to place wizard 1 or 2, as they are clones all knowing the same stuff.

Its done for tournament players, to have maximum control over the game and to speed things up. But for immersive playing, less competitive gaming wizard 1 and 2 are soulness clones. This was always a bit of a problem for heroes with AoS, as there was almost no customization for heroes, but now with magic the doubled down on it.

It was cool to have CoS Aelf and human wizards that aren't clones of each other in your CoS army. Ofcourse we still have to see the warscrolls and I am still hoping to see a lot of different types of wizards in CoS. I love the Alchemite Warforger and I hope to see more of this kind of differentiation. I want to see CoS wizards from different realms, that control different elements. I don't want generic wizards that all know the same spells. But for that it is to early, but from what I saw so far, I do fear a bit for that.

 

 

[JackStreicher]

I‘ll skip this box. All I need is the riders and the beast. At 124€ incl. discount there’s just too mich trash paper I am supposed to pay for.