The Rumour Thread

[Rid]

My local says battalions will have a pts cost same as models so will all be viable

[Ben]

So what about this event???

I take it anyone in the UK that is are that weekend will do their best to be there?  Show support to GW and let them know that if they run events that the players want then we will turn up, rather than running events that they want and having half the hall empty.  

[Shane]

All depends how much stuff I need to make 2000pts (and against what restrictions). 

AoS has so far encouraged me to have more fun with lists. So will see how what I own translates to Matched Play. 

And whether they've included FW models. 

[pforson]

I'm in Germany, but I really hope to be there. Just need to convince the wife... which may be tough as I'm already coming over in October for KoW.

I might need to buy a lot of chocolate...

[daedalus81]

I need to move to the UK...anyone willing to adopt me?

[Sete]

So it begins...

[Dez]

Oooh I gotta sharpen my choppaz...

[hobgoblinclub]

I'll be amazed if FW models weren't in @Shane. It'd be a step backward to remove them now. AoS has been so all inclusive! That said, I'm concerned we're about to get some sort of needless restrictions with these 'battlefield roles' or whatever it said.  

[Gaz Taylor]

9 hours ago, hobgoblinclub said:

I'll be amazed if FW models weren't in @Shane. It'd be a step backward to remove them now. AoS has been so all inclusive! That said, I'm concerned we're about to get some sort of needless restrictions with these 'battlefield roles' or whatever it said.  

Even if they aren't, nothing stopping FW releasing a list for their models (I suspect this is what will happen)  

[Mikosan]

Love that artwork!  Really looking forward to everything, the anticipation is killing me, Lol!

[Roostmanuva]

I really like that artwork too, really excited about where AOS is heading!

[Alpharion]

Minimum requirements of troops will be a thing.

[Sete]

Seems interesting.

[DamonRafael]

Mmmmh I would say that you can still build up a "monster" force, as far as the whole army has the same keyword. At least, I hope so!

[Darth Alec]

I assume formations will ignore the "core" tax. So if you use a Thunderbeast Warhost or similar, you can go all-monster.

 

 

[Ravenwing]

That sounds really awesome. It is going to be a great Summer.

I am especially looking forward to the Generals handbook and the new AoS faction.

 

[Shane]

Not keen. But will withhold judgement until I read the book myself. 

[polarbear]

I like some incentive to stay within faction. 

[Garxia]

Even if at first sight it sounds a bit limiting, I really like that they benefit mono keywords army.

This can help combating the cheese of spamming the best units of every faction and not being penalized for sticking with a fluffy army.

[amysrevenge]

28 minutes ago, Garxia said:

Even if at first sight it sounds a bit limiting, I really like that they benefit mono keywords army.

This can help combating the cheese of spamming the best units of every faction and not being penalized for sticking with a fluffy army.

In theory I agree.  In practice, though, some of the very best armies are already single-faction (thinking of things like Stormcasts, Seraphon, etc.) and so they only get better, while some of the others are only functional in combination.  Many "traditional" armies are several keyword factions joined together already - you can make a balanced Seraphon army that plays well in every phase of the game out of a single keyword, but you really struggle to do a Dispossessed one, and it's practically impossible to do one out of former Empire or Dark Elf warscrolls.

Sort of like how in previous editions, in theory objective-based scenarios were supposed to be a great leveller, but in practice it was the armies that were already very good that ended up also being the most suited to objective-based scenarios.

Anyway, this isn't some great mystery, so hopefully its all taken into account.

Edited June 22, 2016 by amysrevenge

[Garxia]

42 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

In theory I agree.  In practice, though, some of the very best armies are already single-faction (thinking of things like Stormcasts, Seraphon, etc.) and so they only get better, while some of the others are only functional in combination.  Many "traditional" armies are several keyword factions joined together already - you can make a balanced Seraphon army that plays well in every phase of the game out of a single keyword, but you really struggle to do a Dispossessed one, and it's practically impossible to do one out of former Empire or Dark Elf warscrolls.

Sort of like how in previous editions, in theory objective-based scenarios were supposed to be a great leveller, but in practice it was the armies that were already very good that ended up also being the most suited to objective-based scenarios.

Anyway, this isn't some great mystery, so hopefully its all taken into account.

In these examples, problem isn't about the system, it's about the army. With or without points or restrictions, it's hard to make a balanced army, cause so few options.

We can all really hope that all "older" armies get expanded to be worth as an standalone force (to a seraphon level), but unluckily, it seems that they'll get phased, if not explicity, just by the problem you have already mentioned.

[mhsellwood]

7 hours ago, Shane said:

Not keen. But will withhold judgement until I read the book myself. 

At this point cautiously optimistic. As you say really need to read the book to understand how it all works.

Of course, if the points seem good but the unit organisation is a bit duff, I would advocate for free play with army size dictated by points.

*edit* just re-read and see the mention of the change in unit classification being ONE of the advantages. Wonder what that means... *edit*

Edited June 22, 2016 by mhsellwood
Additional thought to add

[UrFrndJenn]

I'm super glad they decided to include something like this. One of my biggest pet peeves with Warhammer fantasy and a lot of GW games is that armies don't actually look like armies and hardly resemble the fluff at all. I honestly don't think the core tax was hard enough. I'm hoping this leads to more balanced armies in competitive play. 

[Brunel.Richard]

I'm not worried one way or another with the idea of Battleline units. This is just ONE of many ways to play. The rules with their points and restrictions have been written with the specific purpose of creating "balanced" armies for use in "competitive" matched play. If you want to take an all monster army or one just of heroes that's still cool, just play a narrative game or using the four page rule set and its scenario.

My only concern with the Generals Handbook is that we will get back to the position we were with 8th (or 3rd to 8th edition, to be honest) where the ONLY way anyone ever played was with points and with that one line 'em up and kill 'em scenario. I want the campaigns and the narrative play options in it to outshine the matched play stuff so that we get some variety in our games and events.

[PJetski]

I only play Seraphon units and it sounds like I can keep running my Thunderquake Starhost in Matched Play, but I won't be able to bring a Loremaster for Hand of Glory unless I deal with a core tax.

That seems... fair. It should allow them to design cool mini factions like Ironjawz and Flesheater Courts and make them powerful without worrying about how they combo with models outside their faction.