The Rumour Thread

[Edgecoc]

3 hours ago, Soulsmith said:

Can anyone do a rough conversion into £ of those prices? 

However much a Start Collecting costs I would assume.

[Soulsmith]

16 minutes ago, Edgecoc said:

However much a Start Collecting costs I would assume.

Predominantly meant the books thank you very much.

[FractalRain]

I'm really surprised with the KO Start Collecting box, since most usually include a Battleline unit.  You can't "legally" play this in any Matched Play game out of the box, which is unfortunate.

[Infeston]

17 minutes ago, FractalRain said:

I'm really surprised with the KO Start Collecting box, since most usually include a Battleline unit.  You can't "legally" play this in any Matched Play game out of the box, which is unfortunate.

In my opinion GW is moving away from a completely matched play approach and focus mainly on open and narrative play. In open and narrative play battleline and limitations do not exist. Matched play seems to be still supported, so that you can still play at tournaments. But the main focus is on open play battles. Matched play rules are more of an addition to the existing rules. But if you look at the last releases they were mostly focussed on the setting and the narrative. Also the non-matched play battleplans and the Time of War rules seem to be better designed and suited for interesting battles.

I have to say I am very happy with a stronger focus on the setting and the narrative than to just cater to the tournament players. I think AoS is a game which can be played at tournaments but seems to be better suited for open play and narrative play. The best battles that I have played on the board weren't often fair and always involved a lot of random events occuring on the board. 

I also think we as players shouldn't see matched play as the only viable way to play. And I think GW also tries to encourage narrative and open play more by releasing start collecting boxes with no battleline choices. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Infeston

[FractalRain]

1 minute ago, Infeston said:

In my opinion GW is moving away from a completely matched play approach and focus mainly on open and narrative play. In open and narrative play battleline and limitations do not exist. Matched play seems to be still supported, so that you can still play at tournaments. But if you look at the last releases they were mostly focussed on the setting and the narrative. Also the non-matched play battleplans and the Time of War rules seem to be better designed and suited for interesting battles.

I have to say I am very happy with a stronger focus on the setting and the narrative than to just cater to the tournament players. I think AoS is a game which can be played at tournaments but seems to be better suited for open play and narrative play. The best battles that I have played on the board weren't often fair and always involved a lot of random events occuring on the board. 

I also think we as players shouldn't see matched play as the only viable way to play. And I think GW also tries to encourage narrative and open play more by releasing start collecting boxes with no battleline choices. 

Well stated and I agree with you completely on all your points!  It just surprises me, as most games I've played (even narrative, Firestorm, etc) still use the Matched Play points system etc to setup the game.  Having a Battleline unit included would make that easier for most people who start a new KO army.  But again, I echo your sentiments and appreciate the support we are getting from GW regarding narrative play and lore/background.

[someone2040]

So with LVO now over, I think an interesting point to take out of it is that GW aren't adverse to releasing 40k codexes with a single new model (Necrons getting a plastic Cryptec).

To date, we've only really seen no-model releases or full proper releases (Whether that's expanding an existing faction or a new faction). There hasn't really been a halfway where they release a new kit or character or two along with a codex/battletome apart from the Blood Angels/Dark Angels which basically got a variant Primaris lieutenant.

 

It's definitely something I would like to see more of in future as 'almost complete' factions transition to battletome status.

A great example in my opinion, would be Gutbusters. They're the kinda faction that already has a decent amount of different units and characters (especially if you bundle back in Firebellies and Maneaters). If you say remake the Tyrant/Butcher models in plastic (Perhaps without the Cauldron option), suddenly the faction is a complete plastic faction and has plenty of options.

Edited January 30, 2018 by someone2040

[Cerlin]

Id buy battletomes for armies I did not have to build into them. And read lore.

People also forget that you can play straight points with new players. You do not have to say "oh no battleline with your shiney new KO? No game for you"

Besides, arkonauts are probably the least sexy part of the kit narrative and aesthetics wise.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, someone2040 said:

So with LVO now over, I think an interesting point to take out of it is that GW aren't adverse to releasing 40k codexes with a single new model (Necrons getting a plastic Cryptec).

To date, we've only really seen no-model releases or full proper releases (Whether that's expanding an existing faction or a new faction). There hasn't really been a halfway where they release a new kit or character or two along with a codex/battletome apart from the Blood Angels/Dark Angels which basically got a variant Primaris lieutenant.

 

It's definitely something I would like to see more of in future as 'almost complete' factions transition to battletome status.

A great example in my opinion, would be Gutbusters. They're the kinda faction that already has a decent amount of different units and characters (especially if you bundle back in Firebellies and Maneaters). If you say remake the Tyrant/Butcher models in plastic (Perhaps without the Cauldron option), suddenly the faction is a complete plastic faction and has plenty of options.

Well GW arn't adverse to releasing Codex with no additional content too! Several of the previous Codeci did not get any new models. E.g. Grey Knights, Thousand Sons or Chaos Space Marines. It can be argued that Death Guard made up a CSM release but they are their own faction now, seperate of CSM. But for AoS indeed this has not yet been done but likely will be done with the Legions of Nagash Battletome.

Personally though I do think that there ae pros and cons for GW to doing it this way and I actually believe AoS benifits from not going the same route.
If I could show you the designed content for the 40K Codeci in real life and compair it to 7th 40K I think we'd both agree that having a book with nothing but 3-4 new pieces of artwork doesn't really get me excited in getting this book.

To be completely honest with you I didn't even get the Chaos Daemons book because the Bloodletter entries are also in CSM, the stats are very easy to remember and there are only two Stratagems I really care about which are also easy to remember... Point being, if GW would make AoS Battletomes with lore we allready know, no new models and one relevant Battalion I wouldn't get the book... I'd honestly try to find a copy of the Matched play points and remember the Battalion abilities.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Killax

[RuneBrush]

4 minutes ago, Killax said:

Well GW arn't adverse to releasing Codex with no additional content too! Several of the previous Codeci did not get any new models. E.g. Grey Knights, Thousand Sons or Chaos Space Marines. It can be argued that Death Guard made up a CSM release but they are their own faction now, seperate of CSM. But for AoS indeed this has not yet been done but likely will be done with the Legions of Nagash Battletome.

Personally though I do think that there ae pros and cons for GW to doing it this way and I actually believe AoS benifits from not going the same route.
If I could show you the designed content for the 40K Codeci in real life and compair it to 7th 40K I think we'd both agree that having a book with nothing but 3-4 new pieces of artwork doesn't really get me excited in getting this book.

To be completely honest with you I didn't even get the Chaos Daemons book because the Bloodletter entries are also in CSM, the stats are very easy to remember and there are only two Stratagems I really care about which are also easy to remember... Point being, if GW would make AoS Battletomes with lore we allready know, no new models and one relevant Battalion I wouldn't get the book... I'd honestly try to find a copy of the Matched play points and remember the Battalion abilities.

GW made the decision to release low to no model Codexes when they dropped 8th edition.  The theory being that they want to be able to discontinue the Index books as quickly as possible and to give players those flavour style rules that means the army plays as it should.  Basically they learnt a valuable lesson from the AoS release.  Some Codexes overlap (as I imagine we'll get with Battletomes) because GW is very aware that people want all of their resources in one book, 40k Daemon players aren't going to purchase 4 books to get the rules for their daemon units with a mish-mash of stratagems.

I can see us getting a similar treatment this year and low to no model Battletomes coming out to fill the gaps where people are still using the Grand Alliance books.  GA: Death is effectively superseded on the 10th when Legions of Nagash comes out.  It's not "ideal" by any stretch of the imagination, but it's actually a step in the right direction.  GW have said for a while now too that they really want to go back to the days of releasing models outside of Codex/Battletome's, so we might get a box of Khornigors out of the blue, we can just pick them up and add them to our Khorne (or Brayherd) armies without having to wait for a new book.

[Jamopower]

That would make sense in many levels. The stuff that is reliant on the old grand alliance warscrolls start to show a bit age as the designers have invented new ideas along the way with the new battletomes. It also wouldn't be too hard as if you look at the split in the "Why we fight" section of the Malign portents, they would need to release only 6 to 7 battletomes: Freecities, Greenskins, Gutbusters, Beastmen, Skaven, possibly Slaves to darkness and Slaanesh to have close to everything on the grand alliance books updated and when that is done, they really have free hands on doing anything they like and concerning that, the one off releases make sense, as they even out the demand a bit. A new army might be too big investment to someone, or they might not be interested on the particular army, but by releasing Malign portent like heroes, there are lot of people that will buy the models as "it's just one guy more" and have use on their armies.

[bsharitt]

While new models are great and always welcome, I think I prefer the way they're doing codex releases for 8th edition 40k as it will get everyone up to speed fairly quickly and shouldn't leave whole factions unviable for a whole edition. Everybody having books just makes the game feel more complete and not quite so two tier. Yes, there are going to be some codexes/battletomes that are better, but the effort is nice you don't feel like you're playing with GW's leftovers as much if you at least have a book, despite the age of the models.

At the end if the day, I'd prefer that 2018 is the year of Battletomes more than a year of models(but both are obviously preferred). Just going by what didn't get rules in GHB 2017, I'd like to see a mixed faction battletome similar to what LoN will probably be but for the former high elves. Have an option to run them together(maybe add a generic battleline that GW still sells?) with generic traits and artifacts, but also have some add on for specific factions, but rather than giving them each their own full faction load out, maybe do it like the Kharadron skyports where you use the basic stuff, but maybe have access to a couple of extra special rules or artifacts if you run Phoenix Temple.

I wouldn't mind seeing something similar for destruction uniting Greenskinz and Grots into a single battletome bringing back Orcs and Goblin(sorry, Orrucks and Grots) as unified army now missing black orcs and savage orcs. Of course Moonclan, Gitmob and Greenskinz could also do well with their own battle tome each.  And of course a non-Beastclaw Ogre Battletome. Gutbusters and also throw away the notion of Firebellies and Maneaters as their own factions unless you're going to do something with them.

[Veterannoob]

So for rumor engine I’m going AoS terrain, MP likely .

[Turgol]

Seems like a wooden construction to hang people to me.

[RuneBrush]

For easy reference:

I'm calling a gibbet scenery piece

[Jamopower]

18 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

While new models are great and always welcome, I think I prefer the way they're doing codex releases for 8th edition 40k as it will get everyone up to speed fairly quickly and shouldn't leave whole factions unviable for a whole edition. Everybody having books just makes the game feel more complete and not quite so two tier. Yes, there are going to be some codexes/battletomes that are better, but the effort is nice you don't feel like you're playing with GW's leftovers as much if you at least have a book, despite the age of the models.

At the end if the day, I'd prefer that 2018 is the year of Battletomes more than a year of models(but both are obviously preferred). Just going by what didn't get rules in GHB 2017, I'd like to see a mixed faction battletome similar to what LoN will probably be but for the former high elves. Have an option to run them together(maybe add a generic battleline that GW still sells?) with generic traits and artifacts, but also have some add on for specific factions, but rather than giving them each their own full faction load out, maybe do it like the Kharadron skyports where you use the basic stuff, but maybe have access to a couple of extra special rules or artifacts if you run Phoenix Temple.

The aelves, duardin and the humans are in the fluff nowadays sort of combined folk. If I have undersrtood correctly, there are no aelven cities, let alone states, where they could draw the armies from. Thus  a battletome that would reflect the evolved fluff and have all of the free people fighting better together would be ace.

[FractalRain]

2 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

The aelves, duardin and the humans are in the fluff nowadays sort of combined folk. If I have undersrtood correctly, there are no aelven cities, let alone states, where they could draw the armies from. Thus  a battletome that would reflect the evolved fluff and have all of the free people fighting better together would be ace.

Well, to clarify, there are aelven cities in the Realms of Light and Shadow (Daughters of Khaine for example), however, those humans, aelves, and duardin which were in Azyr now form mixed armies.  However, in the books, they do tend to segregate themselves a little, even in Azyr, as they still prefer their racial communities.

[Jamopower]

Ok, but I guess in the wartime they would still be drafted for the combined army of the city state, maybe in a specialized regiment from the local shrine of the Ur-Phoenix, but still under the command of the general of the army. Thus they could have a "free cities"keyword which the general's omand ability / trait would trigger. This wouldn't however rule out a later battletome centralized to some of these more specialized parts lie the Phuenix temple etc. We just wouldn't need to wait forever if we wanted to have our high elves and such fleshed out a bit.

Edit: My own take on this is an elven militia unit currently on my project queue, for which I'm using all sorts of dark, high and wood elf models and what I'm going to run as a freeguild guard unit with militia weapons.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Jamopower

[Tonhel]

The new warhammer community preview about LoN sounds fantastic! It certainly seems to be a great Battletome!

[Turragor]

I called the new tombstone summoning zone in a discussion about nurgles summoning!

No genius required tbh. Logically it made sense. 

Looks like death is going to be good! 

[bsharitt]

The "healing" version of summoning looks like a nice trade off to be able to have nice thematic summoning but not have it being completely worthless in matched play, yet not as potentially OP as unlimited summoning.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

For easy reference:

I'm calling a gibbet scenery piece

New super corpse cart.

Edit: Scratch that.  Gravesite.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Sleboda

[AGPO]

@Sleboda beat me to it but I'm pretty confident this is going to be terrain to mark grave sites in LoN. I really like the army specific terrain coming out especially the way it interacts with the armies it links to. It really gives a feel of the armies of different Gods fighting for control of very essence of the Realms themselves.

[daedalus81]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

New super corpse cart.

Edit: Scratch that.  Gravesite.

Gallows maybe?

[Thostos]

5 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

For easy reference:

I'm calling a gibbet scenery piece

Gravesite marker...

 Oops.just noticed Sleboda`s post,,in that case I agree:)

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Thostos

[BURF1]

1 hour ago, Thostos said:

Gravesite marker...

 Oops.just noticed Sleboda`s post,,in that case I agree:)

 

 

weird it's not releasing with the book tho.