The Rumour Thread

[Chikout]

1 hour ago, Aeryenn said:

Generic battalions... Hope this is just a rumour. It kills diversity. Everything generic is the opposite of what we should want for AoS. It's the diversity in rules, models, playstyles that makes this game interesting. Just as with other rules, some need to be balanced. There is a lot of useless ones used only to lower drops and many that seem op like reroll all hit rolls. That they are not balanced isn't the fault of them being specific for every faction but the battletome writers. It's like removing allegiance abilities because some are better than others.

My suspicion is that battalions will stay for narrative and open play and gw will continue to make new ones. 

The complaint is that in matched play they often have the effect of limiting match play rather than adding diversity. Rather than opening up list building options they dictate them. A lot of tzeentch or fyrselayer lists end up looking very similar due their very popular battalions. 

We also don't know how many generic battalions there are, what kind of abilities they offer, if they still affect drops, artefacts etc. 

I could imagine a world where we get 30 or 40 battalions for a variety of army compositions and buffs. Let's say there are 5 battalions that are 3 battleline and a hero. One buffs move, one buffs defense etc. It would let players double down on strengths or mitigate weaknesses. I don't think this would limit competitive army composition any more than battalions currently do. 

[Sleepers]

10 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

That is true but, there are battetomes that have outright just terrible battailons.

For example have your ever seen a non pestilens skavenplayer use one, that wasn’t part of some narrative game??

To add to this, they CAN fix battalions for everyone with a generic change. Yes, it is possible, I know people have concerns for specific factions, but we don’t know the full scope of changes so we can’t say for sure they don’t have ways to mitigate the issues for those factions specifically. They cannot however fix all sub-factions with generic ones. I also think that generic doesn’t have to mean boring. The structure can be the same and still be interesting. They may even have generic battalions that are like take 3 monsters or whatever. Just my 2 cents.

[Perturbato]

As some said before the battalions that were must have will drop into sub-allegiance for the factions that need it very much. Problem will be the delay for updates for thoses factions.

I'm not a 40k player but i think after the 9th edition there have been some armies let down for month without update and it would be the case in addition to force people buying new stuff.

[Jagged Red Lines]

My initial thoughts when I saw this rumour was that they could add new keywords to existing warscrolls, like infantry, cavalry, artillery, monstrous cavalry etc.

That would make the generic battalions in the core book a bit more diverse (I.e. take two infantry, one cavalry and one artillery etc).

[GrimDork]

I don’t mind the idea of generic battalions, as long as it is in addition to the existing ones.

I love the way they allow for army themed special rules. For example the KO battalion rules are great and fluffy. Focused fire (start of shooting, pick an enemy unit, reroll 1’s to hit) captures well the idea of coordinated target priority in a shooty force.
Iron sky command gives battle shock immunity bubble around ironclad. I don’t see how generic battalions will give the same level of flavour in rules.

By all means have some generic choices that everyone can use (especially for those armies whose battalions are less worth it), but I hope they don’t take away the current ones completely.

[Harioch]

If generic battalions are a real thing maybe they're just the major part of all battalions but not exclusive. I mean we could see battalions by sub-factions etc. We could even have a variation in a subfaction that alter a generic battalion.

Hypothetic example: The generic battalion "Cavalry-charge-whatever" is composed of three cavalry units and give you a reroll for a charge at your phase. But if you take this battalion in a Stalliarch Lords allegiance, it also give you a reroll for mortal wounds inflicted on charge etc or can include a Archai instead of a cavalry unit.

[KingBrodd]

7 hours ago, Pyrk said:

I split mine over two FW orders, I would assume it works the same for GW. You're basically just buying store credit.

Thanks mate!!

2 hours ago, Neverchosen said:

I personally like almost all of the rumoured changes. However, I am being pretty cautious regarding this leak, not because of the possible voracity of the source, I would simply like to see the rules firsthand before making any real judgements. For example I think charge reactions tied to command points sounds like a really fun mechanic, but could become really unbalanced depending on how armies generate these points and which units can take advantage of specific reactions. I think that having smaller table sizes is a great thing for those of us with less space, personally I have been playing on smaller tables by virtue of living in an apartment. But even this could give strange new balancing issues although I do like it for my love of quicker pick up games. Finally I think the turn 3 objective removal sounds really weird and doesn't really take away any of the RNG that makes people upset about the turn roll off... but if the scenarios are designed around this mechanic it could honestly be great fun. 

I feel like I have been absent from the discourse of these rumours as real life has really gotten in the way of my hobby lately. But in truth, I doubt anyone was waiting with bated breath for the random musings of the Neverchosen on this! 😅 

Either way, I am taking a wait and see approach on this rumour.  I am more interested in these rumoured Bretonniancast Eternals.

Mate I was wondering where you had gone!! Your musings are always needed. 

[Yondaime]

3 hours ago, Aeryenn said:

Generic battalions... Hope this is just a rumour. It kills diversity. Everything generic is the opposite of what we should want for AoS. It's the diversity in rules, models, playstyles that makes this game interesting. Just as with other rules, some need to be balanced. There is a lot of useless ones used only to lower drops and many that seem op like reroll all hit rolls. That they are not balanced isn't the fault of them being specific for every faction but the battletome writers. It's like removing allegiance abilities because some are better than others.

Yes and no, batallions have they pros and cons, and atm the cons are far more greater because:

-in a competitive play 99% of the times to have a low drop is a huge advange, this makes some batallions mandatory, and this is bad because it makes 1 max 2 batalions per tome actually viable, and some tomes dont even have that luck (CoS), so list building becomes more and more restrictive and less fun

-it makes some armyes power spike even more (look at changehost)

If you want my opinion batallion should be free upgrade that you get when you bring specified units on the battlefield and initiative is decided by a dice roll like 40k, so we wont have lists like 1 drop sentinels spam that are unfun to play with and against 

[JackStreicher]

maybe battalions will stay but there will be a list of generic battalions for everyone? (Like they did with command abilities)

[Malakithe]

7 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

Yes and no, batallions have they pros and cons, and atm the cons are far more greater because:

-in a competitive play 99% of the times to have a low drop is a huge advange, this makes some batallions mandatory, and this is bad because it makes 1 max 2 batalions per tome actually viable, and some tomes dont even have that luck (CoS), so list building becomes more and more restrictive and less fun

-it makes some armyes power spike even more (look at changehost)

If you want my opinion batallion should be free upgrade that you get when you bring specified units on the battlefield and initiative is decided by a dice roll like 40k, so we wont have lists like 1 drop sentinels spam that are unfun to play with and against 

The thing about rumors are they are just gossip....and for the sake of gossip....your assuming 'drops' will still be a thing. Maybe they remove the 'drops' mechanic all together. Maybe they replace it with something else. 🤷‍♂️ Who tf knows at this point what will happen lol

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

9 hours ago, OkayestDM said:

@Lord Krungharr It has been suggested that the god-specific BoC battalions might end up being worked unto sub-factions. There's no definite proof, although I believe the Nighthaunt subfactions from Be'lakor were pretty much just lifted from old battalions that are no longer in use. Don't loose hope just yet.

This has been suggested, but only as speculation on what might happen with BoC. Not as a rumour in it's own right. Right now, the only positive statement we have is "Battalions will be gone from matched play in AoS 3".

2 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

The thing about rumors are they are just gossip....and for the sake of gossip....your assuming 'drops' will still be a thing. Maybe they remove the 'drops' mechanic all together. Maybe they replace it with something else. 🤷‍♂️ Who tf knows at this point what will happen lol

I feel that if drops are sticking around, a world in which everyone gets access to the same battalions is the best one for that mechanic. Because then it actually becomes a choice whether or not you want to pay points/build your list to lower your drops, not just a thing that some armies can do and others can't.

[Yondaime]

18 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

The thing about rumors are they are just gossip....and for the sake of gossip....your assuming 'drops' will still be a thing. Maybe they remove the 'drops' mechanic all together. Maybe they replace it with something else. 🤷‍♂️ Who tf knows at this point what will happen lol

Yeah you are right, i was just saying what are the problems with batallions atm

the waiting is killing me tho, january had no faq so the game its pretty stale for me atm, the more changes they have the better

[Enoby]

I have a feeling, if these generic battalions are real, they won't come with abilities and will be more like detachments in 8th ed 40k - a way to get an extra command point and artefact with a lower drop rate (if that matters) by taking certain types of unit. 

I'm not basing this off any evidence, it's just a case of thinking that, if they want battalions to be less army-defining and considerably better for some armies over others, having no extra bonus is the way to go. Otherwise you would have special abilities that work on one unit better than the others; for example, a basic bonus is rerolling 1 to hit, but some units and armies get that inbuilt or at least very easily, whereas other armies don't have any internal access to rerolls to hit so it benefits them more. Same for rerolling charges, or +s to hit if the cap is implemented. While things like +1 attack would work, it's a bit strong so everyone would take it unless it was super expensive.

Personally I prefer current battalions, and a half way approach of generic but with abilities that will help some more than others I can envision causing other issues. 

The biggest loss is thematic lists - while you can play them in narrative games, many don't play those rules against strangers. Things like squig lists from battalions or beastmen marked armies would be lost from most games because other armies had battalions that were too strong.

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, Chikout said:

My suspicion is that battalions will stay for narrative and open play and gw will continue to make new ones. 

The complaint is that in matched play they often have the effect of limiting match play rather than adding diversity. Rather than opening up list building options they dictate them. A lot of tzeentch or fyrselayer lists end up looking very similar due their very popular battalions. 

We also don't know how many generic battalions there are, what kind of abilities they offer, if they still affect drops, artefacts etc. 

I could imagine a world where we get 30 or 40 battalions for a variety of army compositions and buffs. Let's say there are 5 battalions that are 3 battleline and a hero. One buffs move, one buffs defense etc. It would let players double down on strengths or mitigate weaknesses. I don't think this would limit competitive army composition any more than battalions currently do. 

It would make every single battalion worthless in the skaven tome,

although they are overpriced and pretty useless, so I would be on board having some formations, that actually do something

[wayniac]

4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

That is true but, there are battetomes that have outright just terrible battailons.

For example have your ever seen a non pestilens skavenplayer use one, that wasn’t part of some narrative game??

I think the irony here is that you possibly would see the lesser seen battalions more if they didn't cost points. But they have to cost points or people would say it's not fair. 

While I'm personally not a fan of removing them completely because it does remove a lot of flavor if they're not going to balance them and they're not going to limit them let's say one per army, And they are going to keep tying it to drops which determines who goes first then I don't see any other way Short of getting rid of them for matched play. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by wayniac

[Skreech Verminking]

11 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I think the irony here is that you possibly would see the lesser seen battalions more if they didn't cost points. But they have to cost points or people would say it's not fair. 

While I'm personally not a fan of removing them completely because it does remove a lot of flavor if they're not going to balance them and they're not going to limit them let's say one per army, And they are going to keep tying it to drops which determines who goes first then I don't see any other way Short of getting rid of them for matched play. 

That is true, although a generous points decrease would be nice, considering that the skaven battalions either cost 180points for doing nothing or 400points for having a small buff that doesn’t do much either.

it is pretty frustrating.

Currently the most flavorful skaven army is one that doesn’t use a battalion.

Kinda funny, if you think about it, considering that battalions usually are trying to follow some sort of a narrative 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[KingBrodd]

Beast Snaggas for 40K Preview. Also what is that Shadow?

Edited April 30, 2021 by KingBrodd

[GrimDork]

Plastic squiggoth perhaps??

[Aeryenn]

2 hours ago, Yondaime said:

Yes and no, batallions have they pros and cons, and atm the cons are far more greater because:

-in a competitive play 99% of the times to have a low drop is a huge advange, this makes some batallions mandatory, and this is bad because it makes 1 max 2 batalions per tome actually viable, and some tomes dont even have that luck (CoS), so list building becomes more and more restrictive and less fun

-it makes some armyes power spike even more (look at changehost)

If you want my opinion batallion should be free upgrade that you get when you bring specified units on the battlefield and initiative is decided by a dice roll like 40k, so we wont have lists like 1 drop sentinels spam that are unfun to play with and against 

I've always said drops should be ripped from battalions. It's the most boring and sadly most important part of them at the moment. Unique ability and a bonus artifact is interesting enough.

[Beliman]

1 minute ago, Aeryenn said:

I've always said drops should be ripped from battalions. It's the most boring and sadly most important part of them at the moment. Unique ability and a bonus artifact is interesting enough.

And artefacts!!
 miss the customization that you had playing other GW games...

[Deakz28]

26 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

Beast Snaggas for 40K Preview. Also what is that Shadow?

Probably the new war boss or character they’re getting, he had in the video a huge skull of some sorts around his head, like a helmet, and one on his shoulder, both had horns/tusks so I’d assume given them positions of both spikes it’s the character/war boss 

[KingBrodd]

1 hour ago, Deakz28 said:

Probably the new war boss or character they’re getting, he had in the video a huge skull of some sorts around his head, like a helmet, and one on his shoulder, both had horns/tusks so I’d assume given them positions of both spikes it’s the character/war boss 

 

[SunStorm]

2 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

 

If that makes it into plastic, there is so much to like. Squig skull power fist? Count me I . 

[Acrozatarim]

Is that... a squig with a gun on his shoulder?

[JackStreicher]

Where's that image from?
I am really happy for all the Orc Boyz out there! You're finally getting new models!