The Rumour Thread

[Ejecutor]

Rest in peace Dawnbringer shorts.

[willange]

19 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

Rest in peace Dawnbringer shorts.

It's for the best.  The realms are a dangerous place with man-eating mosquitos and leeches and other dangers.  They really should be wearing full length pants instead of shorts on these crusades anyway.

[Luperci]

40 minutes ago, pitzok said:

In my country there are only two official stores and in every larger city there already probably exists a store or a couple with thriving communities, the discount is usually the only option there is anyway, even if someone would want to pay full price for some godforsaken reason. Also I feel like often people are dragged into the hobby by other, more experienced people that would probably know about the 3rd party discount.

Outside of the discount, local stores always just have a nicer atmosphere imo, official GW store staff feel very overbearing at times. For some reason the local GW store for me stopped hosting gaming and painting sessions for non beginners which sucks. Also as a mtg player it's nice to have one store/community to deal with for everything, I imagine it's the same for people who play other games too.

[EntMan]

4 minutes ago, willange said:

It's for the best.  The realms are a dangerous place with man-eating mosquitos and leeches and other dangers.  They really should be wearing full length pants instead of shorts on these crusades anyway.

It explains why FS are always so tetchy.

Edited April 26 by EntMan

[Lord_of_theRavenspire]

7 minutes ago, Luperci said:

Outside of the discount, local stores always just have a nicer atmosphere imo, official GW store staff feel very overbearing at times. For some reason the local GW store for me stopped hosting gaming and painting sessions for non beginners which sucks. Also as a mtg player it's nice to have one store/community to deal with for everything, I imagine it's the same for people who play other games too.

Ye, stopping non-beginner games seems to be company policy now : (

Even in my old local where I really got on with the manager, it's just sorta like what's the point anymore; I could justify the extra costs for getting free tables etc, but now I'll just take the 20% off ta

[Ganigumo]

As I've mulled it over a bit I think GA BTs might actually be worse than army specific ones.

• You still have the same balance issues if you make them too easy/too hard, except now it affects 4-9 armies winrates instead of just 1.
• You can't target GA BTs as an effective balance lever unless all 4-9 armies of a GA are over/underperforming (Not that I liked this balance lever anyways)
• The narrative is worse. BTs always struggled with being battleplan agnostic objectives, but GAs are pretty loosely defined with tons of variation in army composition. You're going to end up leaving armies out unless they're so generic they may as well be generic ones.

[Mutton]

I have not hid my distaste for BTs in the past, and I had hoped they were implementing a different system with 4th. It seems they're almost exactly the same.

This genuinely crushed a lot of my hype for 4th edition. 

[Grungnisson]

Well, my first instinct is still to just keep ignoring battle tactics altogether.

I do like the idea of secondaries, but I still find the very mechanic of the BT the wrong way to implement them. They're not open enough and too specific and you might just happen upon a game, when you won't get a chance to score a single one. Sometimes, only becuase you're mismatched the selection and the round to attempt it in. It's a recipe for NPE and frustration.

I would much prefer secondaries to be achieved in the course of the game, and hidden.

[Lord_of_theRavenspire]

Battle tactics still feel weird to me too
like, the benefit for outflanking the enemy should be that you've outflanked them, not that you get points for it (ofc the current ruleset arguably doesn't best suit that versus a more trad rnf game)
I feel like it requires you to rethink victory points as being a sort of 'battle resolution' score where if you gain enough points by the end of the game, your opponent is outmaneuvered or routed, as opposed to more tangible material objectives, like realmstone deposits or communications towers

[Ookami]

41 minutes ago, Luperci said:

Outside of the discount, local stores always just have a nicer atmosphere imo, official GW store staff feel very overbearing at times. For some reason the local GW store for me stopped hosting gaming and painting sessions for non beginners which sucks. Also as a mtg player it's nice to have one store/community to deal with for everything, I imagine it's the same for people who play other games too.

Agreed. It feels like GW staff is mostly obliged to do things that are coming from the HQ, so official stores often lack that atmosphere. Also, a couple of years ago I remember they also prohibited playing FW models, which felt crazy. So local stores are the best for me. 

[Satyrical Sophist]

12 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

Well, my first instinct is still to just keep ignoring battle tactics altogether.

I do like the idea of secondaries, but I still find the very mechanic of the BT the wrong way to implement them. They're not open enough and too specific and you might just happen upon a game, when you won't get a chance to score a single one. Sometimes, only becuase you're mismatched the selection and the round to attempt it in. It's a recipe for NPE and frustration.

I would much prefer secondaries to be achieved in the course of the game, and hidden.

The risk of not having them is that you can get into situations where it is too easy to build a list that can just sit on the majority of objectives and not budge the entire game. That’s not possible on every battle plan, but it is a problem for a reasonable number of them.

[ScionOfOssia]

8 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

The risk of not having them is that you can get into situations where it is too easy to build a list that can just sit on the majority of objectives and not budge the entire game. That’s not possible on every battle plan, but it is a problem for a reasonable number of them.

“What do you mean Katakros and then several bricks of Mortek+Harvesters isn’t a fun list to face?”

[Grungnisson]

1 hour ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

The risk of not having them is that you can get into situations where it is too easy to build a list that can just sit on the majority of objectives and not budge the entire game. That’s not possible on every battle plan, but it is a problem for a reasonable number of them.

Do you like playing with the battle tactics then?

Also, other solutions are available. Like hidden agendas, for example. You could draw, say, three at the start of the battle and score additional points for completing two of those.

Or you could incorporate additional scoring conditions in the battleplans. We saw these in some of the more narrative battleplans accompanying the campaign books.

There are options. Many of them, potentially better, than the battle tactics we have.

Edited April 26 by Grungnisson

[Ejecutor]

2 hours ago, Ejecutor said:

Rest in peace Dawnbringer shorts.

I have the feeling that it would be another week without DB 6 if we had no short.

[Tonhel]

1 hour ago, Ganigumo said:

As I've mulled it over a bit I think GA BTs might actually be worse than army specific ones.

• You still have the same balance issues if you make them too easy/too hard, except now it affects 4-9 armies winrates instead of just 1.
• You can't target GA BTs as an effective balance lever unless all 4-9 armies of a GA are over/underperforming (Not that I liked this balance lever anyways)
• The narrative is worse. BTs always struggled with being battleplan agnostic objectives, but GAs are pretty loosely defined with tons of variation in army composition. You're going to end up leaving armies out unless they're so generic they may as well be generic ones.

This!

Having 2 battle tactics for each Alliance only increase the BT pool for some factions in that Alliance. As I posted in the 4.0 Rules thread "Reclaim the Realms is so much easier to obtain for Idoneth or Sylvaneth than for Fyreslayers. This already makes the available pool of BTs to chose from bigger for those factions compared to others in the same Alliance. Thus already creating an unbalance in the same Alliance.

 

[JackOfBlades]

1 hour ago, Ganigumo said:

As I've mulled it over a bit I think GA BTs might actually be worse than army specific ones.

• You still have the same balance issues if you make them too easy/too hard, except now it affects 4-9 armies winrates instead of just 1.
• You can't target GA BTs as an effective balance lever unless all 4-9 armies of a GA are over/underperforming (Not that I liked this balance lever anyways)
• The narrative is worse. BTs always struggled with being battleplan agnostic objectives, but GAs are pretty loosely defined with tons of variation in army composition. You're going to end up leaving armies out unless they're so generic they may as well be generic ones.

Still, anything that moves GW in the direction of fixing balance by fixing stats, traits, enhancements and such is welcome. Instead of "fixing" balance through unthematic point cuts and BT freebies, that bypass the game's soul of the lore coming alive on the tabletop.

Im also holding my breath to see what theyre doing with Narrative Play, where BTs are not a concern.

Edited April 26 by JackOfBlades

[Black_Templar_Lad]

2 hours ago, Ejecutor said:

Rest in peace Dawnbringer shorts.

No more Heresy Thursdays either. We must be gearing up for something, I can feel it.

[Ejecutor]

4 minutes ago, Black_Templar_Lad said:

No more Heresy Thursdays either. We must be gearing up for something, I can feel it.

But HH Thursday was confirmed to be temporarily shut down. DB shorts didn't.

[Tonhel]

7 minutes ago, JackOfBlades said:

Still, anything that moves GW in the direction of fixing balance by fixing stats, traits, enhancements and such is welcome. Instead of "fixing" balance through unthematic point cuts and BT freebies, that bypass the game's soul of the lore coming alive on the tabletop.

Im also holding my breath to see what theyre doing with Narrative Play, where BTs are not a concern.

I am curious how they will balance all factions after their so loved tournament results are pouring in. I don't think they will alter the Warscrolls. I would love this to happen, but they didn't really do it the last 9 years and even with the reset, the warscrolls didn't change much. So I don't expect balancing through warscrolls. So it will probably through points increases/decreases and Alliance BTs.

[Grungnisson]

20 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

This!

Having 2 battle tactics for each Alliance only increase the BT pool for some factions in that Alliance. As I posted in the 4.0 Rules thread "Reclaim the Realms is so much easier to obtain for Idoneth or Sylvaneth than for Fyreslayers. 

How do you know?

[Tonhel]

5 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

How do you know?

I don't think this is hard to know. I just looked at the most mobile and the not most mobile faction within the Order Alliance. 😄 . It's not rocket science to know that some armies will have it much easier to succeed in the Reclaim the Realms than others. Or do you expect that when the indexes are released that FS are as mobile as Idoneth/Sylvaneth 😛.

My main opponent is Idoneth and his army is fast. I never played against Sylvaneth, but they also seem an army that could easly pull it off.

[The_Tallest_Ork]

Fyreslayers have easy access to deepstrike, 12" move monsters, and an army-wide movement buff. They're only as immobile as you want them to be.

[Grungnisson]

41 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

I don't think this is hard to know. I just looked at the most mobile and the not most mobile faction within the Order Alliance. 😄 .

Congratulations on seeing all the new armies' rules already.

[Tonhel]

12 minutes ago, The_Tallest_Ork said:

Fyreslayers have easy access to deepstrike, 12" move monsters, and an army-wide movement buff. They're only as immobile as you want them to be.

😄, Lol, For playing the mobility game and getting Reclaim the Realms they are at the bottom of the Order Alliance.

Even if you focus your whole armylist on mobility as FS player you will still be outmanouverd by most other Order armies and they don't have to build their list around mobility.

But you are right those BT are for every faction equal useable 😄 

 

[ScionOfOssia]

Nothing says you have to use it Turn 1. You can save it for later, and we haven’t seen the rest of the tactics yet either. If anything, RTTR is probably easier to score Turn 2/3 for FS after you’ve gotten into position while Idoneth probably want it Turn 1 if Rite of Creeping Mists sticks around.