The Rumour Thread

[Ganigumo]

4 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Saying that existing battletomes will still work is just saying that no models and allegiances will be invalidated in 3rd.

If we're getting a big change regarding battalions, I would expect that change to happen at the dawn of the 3rd edition. Keeping both Core battalions and faction battalions around would be messy.

How so?
Both scenarios add core battalions, but only one of them also invalidates parts of battletomes so I don't see how keeping both around is messier. We have both army specific and "generic" endless spells and it isn't a problem, this is basically the same thing but for battalions. Realm artifacts also worked literally the same way.

Removing warscroll battalions and replacing them with core battalions invalidates parts of our books, and doesn't actually solve any balance issues in the short term, since by equalizing power disparity across battalions the disparities in other parts of allegiances (like warscrolls, and subfactions) are amplified. The meta will be shaken up, but the game will still only be as balanced as the battletomes, which will take years to correct.

Adding core battalions is literally just that. Its no messier than realm artifacts or Endless spells. From a balance perspective core battalions are a buff to armies with bad battalions, while not tearing down armies with good battalions. Functionally this puts a floor on how weak an armies' battalions can be, which raises up armies with bad battalions, which still only results in a meta mixup, but you aren't invalidating parts of people's allegiance in the process.

[swarmofseals]

2 hours ago, Sigmarusvult said:

 Deathless minions changed into a wholly within 12" 😮

That's way too short for a horde army imo It's been an issue for Nighthaunt since their release . I guess that now it is just going to be an occasional defensive buff.

Wholly within 12 of a hero or gravesite. The gravesites make this a pretty big difference vs. NH.

[PrimeElectrid]

1 hour ago, Ganigumo said:

We should always take what community says with a grain of salt unless they're being super specific, but this sounds like we might not be losing battalions.

I've had a hunch the core battalions might be an additive rule for a while, even after Smorgan's video saying they were gone. The wording between them being replacements or additive isn't hugely different and given his other video where he was talking about how command abilities got increased range didn't mention if they were changed to wholly within (which they almost certainly are) I wouldn't be surprised if he glossed over it or made an assumption.

For reference a hypothetical writing of the rules:
 

  Reveal hidden contents

Core battalions only
"Only core battalions are available for use in matched play and are useable by any allegiance"
Core battalions + warscroll battalions
"Core battalions are available for use in matched play and are useable by any allegiance"
Literally a 1 word change.

 

The WarCom article doesn’t qualify between modes of play. Battletome battalions can be restricted to narrative only and the statement is still true.

[Enoby]

The leaker could of course be wrong or just didn't explain themselves properly, but at the same time it would be odd for them to be correct about all of this but not about battalions being removed for matched play.

If they're only available in narrative and open play then they're still valid, then the statement of nothing being invalidated is still true as matched play is only one mode of play.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Enoby

[novakai]

plus i feel like when they said addressing the Haves and Haves not of each armies and to even out the playing field (which surprisingly the same language everyone else use like Warhammer weekly and other content creator) it would make sense that they relegate current battalions to narrative and match play be only Core battalions because you would establish that playing field right away by doing so.

[Ganigumo]

5 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

The WarCom article doesn’t qualify between modes of play. Battletome battalions can be restricted to narrative only and the statement is still true.

True.

1 minute ago, Enoby said:

The leaker could of course be wrong or just didn't explain themselves properly, but at the same time it would be odd for them to be correct about all of this but not about battalions being removed for matched play.

If they're only available in narrative and open play then they're still valid, then the statement of nothing being invalidated is still true as matched play is only one mode of play.

I'm not suggesting their source is wrong or that they're lying, it seems pretty clear they got access to the rules at some point. But we don't know if it was a full rulebook, or screenshots, or a draft. I suspected this when I watched the first video but there were some absolutely key details of the rules being left out, stuff like when charge reactions get declared, how the retreat action interacts, can you declare charge reactions for a failed charge, whether the increased range on command abilities came with a wholly within change etc.
Whether this is because their source was summarized, they're summarizing it into generalizations, or they don't have a mind for the small details this makes me question how much is being lost in translation. (I don't mean to be insulting or dismissive here, all of our brains work a little differently). Given the translation so far I wouldn't be incredibly surprised at a misinterpretation here, especially with some of the rules question discussions I've seen (sometimes things that seem absolutely obvious to me aren't to others, and vice-versa).

 

9 minutes ago, novakai said:

plus i feel like when they said addressing the Haves and Haves not of each armies and to even out the playing field (which surprisingly the same language everyone else use like Warhammer weekly and other content creator) it would make sense that they relegate current battalions to narrative and match play be only Core battalions because you would establish that playing field right away by doing so.

That statement is a a bit open to interpretation. Core battalions create a Floor an armies' battalion strength (i.e no army is stuck using ones worse than this) and there's a lot of space between raising the floor and pure equity (when the floor and ceiling meet somehow).

Maybe I'm crazy, because I've also seen a lot of content creators talking about how equity in battalions is a good thing, but I've watched many games try to chase balance through equity and the end result is always the removal of things which make the factions/characters/classes distinct, so they end up just being the same thing in a different skin. D&D4e is one of the most notable examples of this, they wanted to make a more balanced game, broke all the classes into 4 "roles", and the end result was that there were functionally only 4 classes, since classes in the same role performed so similarly.(This isn't to say this made 4e bad, just that narrative and interesting design were thrown out in favor of balance.)

I'm not saying I know warscroll battalions are staying, they might be getting scrapped, but personally I feel we're losing an interesting part of the game for no reason. Removal of warscroll battalions doesn't improve the game's balance, and maybe the purpose is to remove a layer of complexity from the equation (and we're removing the part that actually has points which can be adjusted easily....) but there isn't a direct correlation between good battalions and good armies, so it still ultimately comes down to battletome balance.

[CitizenX]

This is also the same verbiage they used when launching 40k and 9th edition, which then immediately got rid of specialist detachments in Matched play. 

[Verminlord]

Personally, I am very excited for battalions as we know them to go extinct. I will miss the fluff of some, but the fluffy ones were the ones that no one played anyways. Battalions have always just been too hard to balance. If a layer of complexity had to be pulled back I think GW made the right choice.

I am especially curious how core battalions will work and how 3.0 battletomes and allegiance abilities will interact with those core battalions. Will we be getting new unit keywords/restrictions and functionally 40k detachments?

Edited May 10, 2021 by Verminlord

[peasant]

46 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

True.

I'm not suggesting their source is wrong or that they're lying, it seems pretty clear they got access to the rules at some point. But we don't know if it was a full rulebook, or screenshots, or a draft. I suspected this when I watched the first video but there were some absolutely key details of the rules being left out, stuff like when charge reactions get declared, how the retreat action interacts, can you declare charge reactions for a failed charge, whether the increased range on command abilities came with a wholly within change etc.
Whether this is because their source was summarized, they're summarizing it into generalizations, or they don't have a mind for the small details this makes me question how much is being lost in translation. (I don't mean to be insulting or dismissive here, all of our brains work a little differently). Given the translation so far I wouldn't be incredibly surprised at a misinterpretation here, especially with some of the rules question discussions I've seen (sometimes things that seem absolutely obvious to me aren't to others, and vice-versa).

 

That statement is a a bit open to interpretation. Core battalions create a Floor an armies' battalion strength (i.e no army is stuck using ones worse than this) and there's a lot of space between raising the floor and pure equity (when the floor and ceiling meet somehow).

Maybe I'm crazy, because I've also seen a lot of content creators talking about how equity in battalions is a good thing, but I've watched many games try to chase balance through equity and the end result is always the removal of things which make the factions/characters/classes distinct, so they end up just being the same thing in a different skin. D&D4e is one of the most notable examples of this, they wanted to make a more balanced game, broke all the classes into 4 "roles", and the end result was that there were functionally only 4 classes, since classes in the same role performed so similarly.(This isn't to say this made 4e bad, just that narrative and interesting design were thrown out in favor of balance.)

I'm not saying I know warscroll battalions are staying, they might be getting scrapped, but personally I feel we're losing an interesting part of the game for no reason. Removal of warscroll battalions doesn't improve the game's balance, and maybe the purpose is to remove a layer of complexity from the equation (and we're removing the part that actually has points which can be adjusted easily....) but there isn't a direct correlation between good battalions and good armies, so it still ultimately comes down to battletome balance.

4e of D&D was absolutely trash for our group It literally kill RPG for us

[PraetorDragoon]

battalion

1 hour ago, Ganigumo said:

How so?
Both scenarios add core battalions, but only one of them also invalidates parts of battletomes so I don't see how keeping both around is messier. We have both army specific and "generic" endless spells and it isn't a problem, this is basically the same thing but for battalions. Realm artifacts also worked literally the same way.

Removing warscroll battalions and replacing them with core battalions invalidates parts of our books, and doesn't actually solve any balance issues in the short term, since by equalizing power disparity across battalions the disparities in other parts of allegiances (like warscrolls, and subfactions) are amplified. The meta will be shaken up, but the game will still only be as balanced as the battletomes, which will take years to correct.

Adding core battalions is literally just that. Its no messier than realm artifacts or Endless spells. From a balance perspective core battalions are a buff to armies with bad battalions, while not tearing down armies with good battalions. Functionally this puts a floor on how weak an armies' battalions can be, which raises up armies with bad battalions, which still only results in a meta mixup, but you aren't invalidating parts of people's allegiance in the process.

The goal of adding the Core battalion is to even out the benefits armies get from battalions in regards from direct battalion bonusses and artefact generation & deployment control. By making only core battalion available to everyone, you even out this playing field directly.  If you keep faction battalions allongside core battalions, you keep the problem that some battalions are stronger than others.

[Erdemo86]

i would like to see a big nerf to shooting. Something like you cant shoot on enemys that are in combat or/and you cant shoot if you are in combat.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Erdemo86

[Ganigumo]

12 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

battalion

The goal of adding the Core battalion is to even out the benefits armies get from battalions in regards from direct battalion bonusses and artefact generation & deployment control. By making only core battalion available to everyone, you even out this playing field directly.  If you keep faction battalions allongside core battalions, you keep the problem that some battalions are stronger than others.

Why is some battalions being stronger than others a problem? It doesn't directly correlate to army strength, this change is actually a buff to the best army in the game (seraphon).
I understand the benefits of core battalions, not having access to battalions locks you out of artifacts and makes listbuilding tough, but the introduction of core battalions solves this issue. I think this is a good change, and makes sense, even though it doesn't necessarily make the game any more balanced.
What I don't understand is why the removal of warscroll battalions is a good change, and how we can draw a box around it, and single it out as being a particularly egregious source of imbalance whose removal will improve the game, especially once the access issue is solved by the introduction of core battalions.
The only argument I've seen that makes sense to me is that they feel the need to remove a layer of complexity in order to better balance the game, but given they released the new DoK and Slaanesh tomes at the same time forgive me for not believing this will actually fix any balance issues.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Erdemo86 said:

i would like to see a big nerf to shooting. Something like you cant shoot on enemys that are in combat or/and you cant shoot if you are in combat.

A retinue core battalion would actually be a very elegant fix to shooting. Something like 1 non monster hero + 1-x non monster units that lets you pass off wounds on a 3 or 4+

[Hawke]

Throwing my guess in for the new destruction faction as being boglars as has been mentioned before, the email teaser banner front face looks pretty much the same as one of the few pictures I can find of them. Also the old white dwarf article also mentioned they ally with strange cyclopeon creatures (fimir) so everyone's a winner!

 

Here's hoping we also get some whacky toad cavalry and a new plastic river troll hag!

[KingBrodd]

12 hours ago, KingBrodd said:

@Whitefang like reacted to this post of Half Orruks, instead of Orruk human hybrids maybe we are getting an Uruk Hai situation with Orruks and Aelves intermingling or Orruks and Grots.

@Whitefanghas also liked this post now as well, Half Orruks it is!!

[pitzok]

1 minute ago, KingBrodd said:

@Whitefanghas also liked this post now as well, Half Orruks it is!!

he might just be messing with ya mate

[PraetorDragoon]

6 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

@Whitefanghas also liked this post now as well, Half Orruks it is!!

Half Orruk, Half Skaven?

[mojojojo101]

44 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

battalion

The goal of adding the Core battalion is to even out the benefits armies get from battalions in regards from direct battalion bonusses and artefact generation & deployment control. By making only core battalion available to everyone, you even out this playing field directly.  If you keep faction battalions allongside core battalions, you keep the problem that some battalions are stronger than others.

What worries me about core battalions is that I can't see how they could possibly be balanced at the same points cost for every army when everyone has such different units that could possibly be included in that battalion.

Different armies will be gain significantly more or less from any particular battalion depending on the rest of their allegiance abilities / warscrolls / other rules.

[pitzok]

6 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Half Orruk, Half Skaven?

don't stop believin'

[The_Dudemeister]

Half Orruk, half Godbeast. But physically and mentally only the strongest part materializes in the offspring. So it's just more Orruks

[novakai]

i think most people in community would have wanted GW to balance the Battalion instead of doing away with them, but i guess that too much of a task so they went with the Core Battalions, like in no way Troggherd and Changehost should cost the same in any universe

if all armies gain core battalion , it easier to not have to worry about pointing them and just balance units cost and how easily and army can fill up those battalion slots versus others

[Feii]

So I keep hearing bout some new soulblight warscrolls leaks, anybody has more info? 

[Nostrammo]

 "The bog-grot tribes that had harassed their stockades were driven back by crackling war machines, the swamp waters were drained in days and the land was baked into hardened clay. Walls and towers increased in size as the region's resources were plundered to build the fast growth of the city".

Pg 54 Core Rulebook

Maybe this is the new breed...Driven out of the swamps from humans building cities of order?

Sorry if this has been posted somewhere else

[Jator]

47 minutes ago, Hawke said:

Throwing my guess in for the new destruction faction as being boglars as has been mentioned before, the email teaser banner front face looks pretty much the same as one of the few pictures I can find of them. Also the old white dwarf article also mentioned they ally with strange cyclopeon creatures (fimir) so everyone's a winner!

 

Here's hoping we also get some whacky toad cavalry and a new plastic river troll hag!

I could settle for this: gnoblar, fimir and weird toad creatures. What's not to love?

[novakai]

bog-grot sound like the Gremlins from Malifaux

[Svalack]

27 minutes ago, Feii said:

So I keep hearing bout some new soulblight warscrolls leaks, anybody has more info? 

Are you sure it isn't just discussion about the rules preview from warcom article? I frequent a few discords, 4chan, reddit and other forums and haven't heard of anything. Sometimes a person with a review copy will tell a friend and he tells another friend and so on, it eventually shows up somewhere.