The Rumour Thread

[Ragest]

Just now, yukishiro1 said:

It's hard for me to believe they'd do something like modifying fighting ranges in a battlepack, that seems weird even by GW's standards. Surely that's a core rules tweak, not something to pop into a battlepack. 

And core rules tweaks come in faqs, and faqs are online documents impossible to leak.

[yukishiro1]

Well, presumably if it is real it's something they'd tell playtesters playtesting the new GHB about since it'd be a huge change that'd drastically impact that new GHB. But the leak doesn't say that, it says it's in the GHB, which would just be bizarre. 

[PJetski]

Battlepacks are just beta tests rules for 4th edition

This isn't the kind of rule they are going to just take away forever after this season... Its going to feel super weird for Khorne to go back to fighting in 1 rank with most of their army.

[Draznak]

6 hours ago, Neverchosen said:

Seraphon or Imperial Guard?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/06/14/the-rumour-engine-14th-june-2022/

 

What if it was a writing kit (pens, inkwell on a desk) ? To be linked to the sort of storage of books from 3 weeks ago :

 

[novakai]

I am taking it with salt

but 2nd rank could just be how 40K does there combat engagement, where if your behind a model who is base contact with the enemy you can attack them. Which was one of the solutions to the current coherency problems beside upping the cap to 11 or 6 

[Plinketts Mawtribes]

30 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

It's hard for me to believe they'd do something like modifying fighting ranges in a battlepack, that seems weird even by GW's standards. Surely that's a core rules tweak, not something to pop into a battlepack. Why would Ogors in Thondia have shorter range than Ogors in InsertRandomlyGeneratedPlacenameHere? 

I don't think you understand how badly Mawtribes players are looking for updates...I'm totally fine with such a drastic change coming from a battlepack.

[Ganigumo]

30 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Well, presumably if it is real it's something they'd tell playtesters playtesting the new GHB about since it'd be a huge change that'd drastically impact that new GHB. But the leak doesn't say that, it says it's in the GHB, which would just be bizarre. 

If they did it as an errata/FAQ to the core rules its an admission they screwed up with coherency rules.

If they put it in a GHB battlepack focusing on infantry it looks more like a planned feature of the season, not a lack of thought or playtesting.
 

[Mutton]

58 minutes ago, Gailon said:

But not everything should be all about damage output.

My personal ideal of what Ogres should be disagrees. 

[Plinketts Mawtribes]

2 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

If they did it as an errata/FAQ to the core rules its an admission they screwed up with coherency rules.

If they put it in a GHB battlepack focusing on infantry it looks more like a planned feature of the season, not a lack of thought or playtesting.
 

Hell, if it's real than I'd argue it's both. Coherency screwed a lot of armies, not just Gluttons in Mawtribes. I have yet to hear anyone that thought the new coherency was a good idea.

[Plinketts Mawtribes]

Just now, Mutton said:

My personal ideal of what Ogres should be disagrees. 

You mean nomadic tribes of ravenous cannibals that are renowned for their ability and willingness to kill and eat everyone and everything they come across? Why on earth would you think an army of those could deal a lot of damage?

[Skreech Verminking]

47 minutes ago, Ragest said:

And core rules tweaks come in faqs, and faqs are online documents impossible to leak.

Wel if it is true, I guess you could say that units on 32mm bases are getting more interesting 

[novakai]

Well for coherency they should have chosen a better number then 5 as the unit cap. most infantry troop comes in 10 and don’t all have reach on their weapons, most standard Calvary units come in 5  or 3 but reinforce once and they become really janky to use because of the rule.

they should have made the cap a 11 if they wanted the unit like those to be useable.

[Ragest]

Coherency rules were the biggest mistake in the edition, I'm fine if they solve it, just sounds weird to me is going to happen in a GHB

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, they have been a massive problem that's artificially made a ton of units bad for no real reason. It'd be great if they get fixed, but it ought to be via a rules change, not something that only applies to one way to play the game. 

[PrimeElectrid]

No points changes for units in 3.0 battle tomes apparently 

[novakai]

IDK but I felt like if they want to change coherency rule they would have done it by now because they change unleash hell and Heroic recovery already in the update 6 months ago but left coherency unchanged.

sometime they feel like a rule or restriction is important to them for the balance of the game (like the rule of three in 40K) or they just want to make it work in the system.

[PrimeElectrid]

Any troop unit can join the +1 damage vs. 3 scoring battalion, not specifically limited to infantry models <5 wounds. 

[Nezzhil]

29 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

No points changes for units in 3.0 battle tomes apparently 

 The new tomes receive point changes via PDF as always

[Ragest]

29 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

No points changes for units in 3.0 battle tomes apparently 

Maybe in faqs? 
 

1 minute ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Any troop unit can join the +1 damage vs. 3 scoring battalion, not specifically limited to infantry models <5 wounds. 

Do we have a troop keyword or smth? As far as I know That’s just for 40k

[JackStreicher]

They should change save stacking (for us casuals) while they’re at it. I simply hate it and it’s anti climatic „Duh, I get +8 to armour lasting until the end of the game and I have a 2+ base save, too bad you don’t have MWs, frak off“ 🙄

I‘d prefer actual narrative campaigns with a set goal instead of 35 unwarranted matched play changes (since they didn’t get it right while writing the rules) per month.

I wouldn’t mind a hit for all „all out delete“ Combos as well (mostly shooting nonsense)

 

- Yeah, a looot of hyperbole

Edited June 14, 2022 by JackStreicher

[PrimeElectrid]

3 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Maybe in faqs? 
 

Do we have a troop keyword or smth? As far as I know That’s just for 40k

Yeah look at current battalions it’s defined there (not hero, warmachine, behemoth)

[Ragest]

Just now, PrimeElectrid said:

Yeah look at current battalions it’s defined there (not hero, warmachine, behemoth)

Gotcha!

I hope we can see the full picture of GHB soon

[Flippy]

37 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yeah, they have been a massive problem that's artificially made a ton of units bad for no real reason.

The solution introduced some issues, but the lines problem was real. If they can make another step (GHB or not, doesn’t really matter - people will play this rule anyway in every format if it makes sense) to soft-force proper ranks then I’m all in. This will address the range&coherency problem for all units save some horde blobs, which are rare and discouraged by the rules anyway (reinforcement caps).

[Tendeadgods]

13 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Any troop unit can join the +1 damage vs. 3 scoring battalion, not specifically limited to infantry models <5 wounds. 

Do you have a link to this information? Thx

[yukishiro1]

21 minutes ago, Flippy said:

The solution introduced some issues, but the lines problem was real. 

Sure, but the obvious solution to that was cloud coherency. GW is so stubborn though about not adopting rules innovations developed by other gaming companies. They'll go miles out of their way to come up with a complicated and problematic "solution" instead of just admitting that someone else came up with something better ages ago. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by yukishiro1