The Rumour Thread

[Ganigumo]

33 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

I don't think this is any better for the game than monster mash, just different. It'll change the game up for sure but as with any change this broad the impact will be extremely uneven. For example Tzeentch is already suffering pretty miserably (i think about a 30% win rate last time the tourney stats were posted?) and they get absolutely wrecked with this update. They have no good combat units to take advantage of the new bonuses (the best would be tzaangor but without rend they're still going to be mediocre) and the horrors, which are their last viable unit, will get absolutely demolished now that good combat units do double the damage against them. You can't screen for them because they are the screen, and it doesn't matter if they count as 3 models when they're all dead. On the other hand Nurgle, an army that is already doing really well, is going to get even better. Plaguebearers are resilient enough to handle the extra damage and counting as 3 models will be huge. Also doubling the damage for blight kings is just a really terrible idea on GW's part. 

I've been pondering the change all morning and thinking about how it would affect my armies and this is what I'm thinking will happen: if your army already had cost effective battleline that you were taking anyway then these changes will be great for you because they just got much better. If your army had bad battleline that you were avoiding then these changes might actually make things worse because the impact of extra damage will outweigh the impact of extra scenario pressure. On top of that you might be forced to take more bad battleline in order to complete tactics/stragegies, weakening your army overall. If you didn't take infantry battleline to begin with then gamewise it won't matter much, but you're in real senario trouble because you have no veterans to do the specific tactics or grand strategies. 

 

generally, the units that benefit from the improved reach were already suffering. Damage in the game isn't going to increase drastically as a result of this change, but blightkings will be a problem, hopefully they see a point hike to compensate.

The bounty hunter thing might be a bit much, but theoretically its a single unit in the army with +1 damage against infantry, and it increases your opponents drops.
The objective thing is going to be very hard to deal with, but objectives are only half the points in the game now, this actually helps some of the bottom tier armies who used to get by on objective control alone (like grot heavy gitz lists) since they'll be better able to control the objectives. Might be an issue though.

Your concerns about having bad battleline are the same as having bad monsters for the past year, some armies like KO just didn't have them at all.

Also for Tzaangors specifically I don't think you need to worry about them being too weak because of a lack of rend, I ran the numbers because I was curious. (Numbers are all with 20 models, the +1 to wound from a nearby arcanite hero, and +1 to hit since like 1/3 the unit gets it anyways)

The BoC edges the DoT ones out against high saves because of extra rend, but generally these numbers look promising. We'll see if they get a big point hike though. There's a few other buffs you could stack on top too. Rumors say Tzeentch might get a new book in the fall so it might be a moot point.

I could maybe see a hosts arcanum list with a couple blocks of Tzaangor accompanied by screamers in the expert conquerors battalion. Sure screamers don't have a big model count, but a few units of 3-6 rushing around counting as 9-18 models could be a good piece for objective control. It'll depend a lot on points I think though.

[Mutton]

I think this GHB season is going to be a lot more nuanced than what people initially expect. There are going to be a multitude of factors at play in every game. I don't think anyone can predict how it's going to pan out until we're at least a few months into it.

Which is why 6-month seasons is a terrible idea GW.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

11 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

The bounty hunter thing might be a bit much, but theoretically its a single unit in the army with +1 damage against infantry, and it increases your opponents drops.

If bounty hunters is literally a battalion containing 1 troop-type unit, it's fine. That's just another hammer, and hammers that can deal with 4 or fewer wound infantry already exist. It becomes a problem, though, if most of your army can be bounty hunters somehow. A meta where only veterans can effectively capture or complete battle tactics, but are also blown up by everything that touches them doesn't sound super fun, to be honest.

[Grimrock]

54 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

The bounty hunter thing might be a bit much, but theoretically its a single unit in the army with +1 damage against infantry, and it increases your opponents drops.
The objective thing is going to be very hard to deal with, but objectives are only half the points in the game now, this actually helps some of the bottom tier armies who used to get by on objective control alone (like grot heavy gitz lists) since they'll be better able to control the objectives. Might be an issue though.

Your concerns about having bad battleline are the same as having bad monsters for the past year, some armies like KO just didn't have them at all.

Also for Tzaangors specifically I don't think you need to worry about them being too weak because of a lack of rend, I ran the numbers because I was curious. (Numbers are all with 20 models, the +1 to wound from a nearby arcanite hero, and +1 to hit since like 1/3 the unit gets it anyways)

I'm not concerned about the viability of specific units or armies per se, just noting that these changes will indeed help some more than others. To me that means that these changes aren't necessarily good or bad for the game, just a lateral shift. Armies that had great monsters (like SoB) will be hurt with the loss of the current season. Armies that have good combat battleline and little to no monsters (like Nighthaunt) will love the new season. The game won't really get any better because you'll still have the haves and have nots, it'll just be different factions benefitting/hurting. 

For the Tzaangor specifically, the main thing for me is their very low defensive stats. Sure their damage will definitely go up, but everyone else's damage will go up too. Tzaangor will kill more, but if any bounty hunter unit gets to strike them first they're just going to dissolve like butter. IMO I think that the net effect will be a negative for units like Tzaangor, but I could definitely be wrong on that and we'll see how it goes. It's certainly an incentive to take the Tzaangors off the shelf and try them out.

Edit to avoid a double post:

37 minutes ago, Mutton said:

I think this GHB season is going to be a lot more nuanced than what people initially expect. There are going to be a multitude of factors at play in every game. I don't think anyone can predict how it's going to pan out until we're at least a few months into it.

Which is why 6-month seasons is a terrible idea GW.

Have they actually said they're going to be dropping a new GHB every 6 months now? It was already a dubious purchase for me since I only get one or two games a month anyway. If it shifts to every 6 months there's absolutely no way I'll be shelling out for it.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Grimrock

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

24 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

For the Tzaangor specifically, the main thing for me is their very low defensive stats. Sure their damage will definitely go up, but everyone else's damage will go up too. Tzaangor will kill more, but if any bounty hunter unit gets to strike them first they're just going to dissolve like butter. IMO I think that the net effect will be a negative for units like Tzaangor, but I could definitely be wrong on that and we'll see how it goes. It's certainly an incentive to take the Tzaangors off the shelf and try them out.

Personally, I think infantry with bad defensive stats will be benefitting from these changes more than other units. The reason being, if they previously couldn't take hits, and now still can't take hits but capture x3 and fight better than before, that's almost a straight improvement. With Bounty Hunters in play, a lot of units will now be able to deal Grave Guard damage, which very little can withstand. So unless you are bringing Phoenix Guard or Blight Kings, don't count on contesting those objectives with your veterans for several rounds. I feel low-save units are looking pretty attractive right now.

[Satyrical Sophist]

Rumour I saw was min 2 troops and max 3 for bounty hunters. Not sure how confirmed it is.

Nurgle flies of both types really like bounty hunter. Pusgoyles are 11 damage 1 attacks each for 22 total, and Plague drones are 8 attacks each for 25 with the champion.

[yukishiro1]

Even Phoenix Guard get deleted if they're taking an extra point of damage per hit. I agree that if anything this raises the value of ****** infantry. 

Tree revs for example are looking borderline busted with the amount of stuff they do in this new edition. Tiny footprint, free teleport, cheap as chips for a unit that counts as 15 on an objective, can score bonus points for new savage spearhead. Of course they're also getting a new book and may lose what makes them good right now. But the point stands that stuff like that suddenly got a lot better, and it doesn't care if you're hitting it for an extra damage because it'd be dead either way.

If Bounty Hunters is a single unreinforced unit it won't have a big impact, if it's 3 troops units with no restrictions on reinforcement it's going to be a deeply meta-warping thing where the game is going to come down to objective-grabbing with vets units that then get deleted as soon as they get looked at by bounty hunters. And that doesn't sound like a very fun game to me TBH. 

[Horizons]

30 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Even Phoenix Guard get deleted if they're taking an extra point of damage per hit. I agree that if anything this raises the value of ****** infantry. 

Tree revs for example are looking borderline busted with the amount of stuff they do in this new edition. Tiny footprint, free teleport, cheap as chips for a unit that counts as 15 on an objective, can score bonus points for new savage spearhead. Of course they're also getting a new book and may lose what makes them good right now. But the point stands that stuff like that suddenly got a lot better, and it doesn't care if you're hitting it for an extra damage because it'd be dead either way.

If Bounty Hunters is a single unreinforced unit it won't have a big impact, if it's 3 troops units with no restrictions on reinforcement it's going to be a deeply meta-warping thing where the game is going to come down to objective-grabbing with vets units that then get deleted as soon as they get looked at by bounty hunters. And that doesn't sound like a very fun game to me TBH. 

I agree, this seems like a step towards 40k. Or how I envision 40k as an outsider that occasionally listens to bat reps while painting.

You'll be building your lists with the intent to fulfill battle tactics as efficiently as possible.

Quick or deepstriking Gellant Veteran units to snag that extra VP.

[yukishiro1]

The battle tactics and grand strategies are also going to cause a massive split between armies with new 3.0 books or white dwarf updates that have good tactics and grand strategies and those without them. People were already talking about whether tome-specific BTs should be banned at competitive events and I think this is just going to push that even more in that direction. Having good tactics in your tome wasn't that important when you could usually get 5 per game either way and when GSes were so easy as to be stupid, but it is going to make a huge difference in a world where completing all 5 is going to be rare rather than the norm and where the new GS list looks genuinely difficult to achieve in close games. 

 

[NauticalSoup]

I just want a Sigmar version fo the tempest of war deck.

I could not care less about GW's vision of a constantly evolving meta for AoS. It's hard enough as is trying to teach 3.0 to new players without wacky season rules forcing you to unlearn how to win every year.

[Angela]

This is the rumor I’ve seen for grand strategies and battle tactics. 

[Gitzdee]

Am i the only one still getting used to 3.0 XD?

[Bosskelot]

2 hours ago, NauticalSoup said:

I just want a Sigmar version fo the tempest of war deck.

I could not care less about GW's vision of a constantly evolving meta for AoS. It's hard enough as is trying to teach 3.0 to new players without wacky season rules forcing you to unlearn how to win every year.

It's definitely a bit counterintuitive to AOS's identity as a more casual easy-to-learn game, for sure.

[Kadeton]

8 hours ago, Mutton said:

I don't think anyone can predict how it's going to pan out until we're at least a few months into it.

Which is why 6-month seasons is a terrible idea GW.

I don't understand - that sounds like an argument in favour of 6-month seasons to me.

The bit at the beginning of a new meta, when everyone is still switching up lists and experimenting with different ideas, is the fun part. You get a more diverse range of armies and units, outside-the-box builds, and unpredictable games, because nobody really knows what the best choices are yet.

After that, once everyone is aware of "how it panned out", that's when you get to the boring late-meta phase where the same three power lists are dominating every tournament podium. Why would you want to do that for another six months when you could just shake it all up and go back to the exciting new meta stage?

Edited June 16, 2022 by Kadeton

[Beliman]

What a ride...

• Early AoS, we had battleline, artillery, leader and behemoth as main roles/positions with Hero, Wizard, Priest, Monster, Warmachine and Totem as main keywords (appart from each specific one).
• In 3.0, we had more "labels" tied to battalions: Commander, Sub-commander, Troops, Artillery and Monster (and that's not a keyword!).
• A few months after 3.0, GW made two new labels: Prime Hunters and Priority Targets that interact with each other.
• In the first GHB of this edition, we are going to recieve a new keywords that is linked with a postion/role (battleline), and with it's own abilities: Galletian Veterans.

I don't know, but do we need 65165 milions labels/tags/keywords/roles/battalion-positions? And do they need to be so widely used (some of them are targets for other abilities, others can change how battleplans work, others have inner abilities, others have some type of interactions with the enemy, others have interact with objectives, ...)?

GW games already work with this kind of stuff: objective secured/troops (40k/HH), vehicles (HH), Characters/Heroes/Independant characters (40k/HH/Fantasy), Monsters/ Cavalry  (Fantasy/HH), Organization Charts (40k/HH), etc... but AoS seems to be moving aside of this, even if we started with really closely: Heroes (Commands/range, Look Out Sir, Heroic Actions), Wizards/Priests (can cast/pray), Monsters (Monstruous Rampage) and Totems (CA range)... coff coff Warmachine(?)

AoS removed 99% of old USR to make the game a bit more straightforward (and I'm happy about that), but I only see problems in this formula if the game just creates labels after labels. Why not write a good basis for the game and give each of them a completely unique behaviour tied to their keyword/role? Why not improve the formula instead of making more labels?

I have the feeling that AoS is made using bandaids after bandaids, instead of having a clear direction that can be tunned up and down or shake the status quo when it's needed with FAQs, erratas, GHB, Season books, Campaigns and White Dwarfs.

Can anyone help me? I really want to be engaged with AoS (I love KOs).

Edited June 16, 2022 by Beliman
grammar

[Gitzdee]

3 minutes ago, Beliman said:

What a ride...

• Early AoS, we had battleline, artillery, leader and behemoth as main roles/positions with Hero, Wizard, Priest, Monster, Warmachine and Totem as main keywords (appart from each specific one).
• In 3.0, we had more "labels" tied to battalions: Commander, Sub-commander, Troops, Artillery and Monster (and that's not a keyword!).
• A few months after 3.0, GW made two new labels: Prime Hunters and Priority Targets that interact with each other.
• In the first GHB of this edition, we are going to recieve a new keywords that is linked with a postion/role (battleline), and with it's own abilities: Galletian Veterans.

I don't know, but do we need 65165 milions labels/tags/keywords/roles/battalion-positions? And do they need to be so widely used (some of them are targets for other abilities, others can change how battleplans work, others have inner abilities, others have some type of interactions with the enemy, otehrs have interactions with objectives, ...)?

GW games already work with this kind of stuff: objective secured/troops (40k/HH), vehicles (HH), Characters/Heroes/Independant characters (40k/HH/Fantasy), Monsters/ Cavalry  (Fantasy/HH), Organization Charts (40k/HH), etc... but AoS seems to be moving aside of this, even if we started with really closely: Heroes (Commands/range, Look Out Sir, Heroic Actions), Wizards/Priests (can cast/pray), Monsters (Monstruous Rampage) and Totems (CA range)... coff coff Warmachine(?)

AoS removed 99% of old USR to make the game a bit more straightforward (and I'm happy about that), but I only see problems in this formula if the game just creates labels after labels. Why not write a good basis for the game and give each of them a completely unique behaviour tied to their keyword/role? Why not improve the formula instead of making more labels?

I have the feeling that AoS is made using bandaids after bandaids, instead of having a clear direction that can be tunned up and down or shake the status quo when it's needed with FAQs, erratas, GHB, Season books, Campaigns and White Dwarfs.

Can anyone help me? I really want to be engaged with AoS (I love KOs).

As a casual player i am just going to play the 3.0 core rules + tomes. I can imagine that this is fun for people who play like 3 games a week but i am glad if i can play a game once every 3 months, its not worth it for me to keep relearning all the rules. While i like min maxing the best matched play lists i am slowly but surely moving toward more narrative/ open play style games. In the end it just want to play with the models i have spend so much time and effort on. 

[Vastus]

40 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I don't understand - that sounds like an argument in favour of 6-month seasons to me.

The bit at the beginning of a new meta, when everyone is still switching up lists and experimenting with different ideas, is the fun part. You get a more diverse range of armies and units, outside-the-box builds, and unpredictable games, because nobody really knows what the best choices are yet.

After that, once everyone is aware of "how it panned out", that's when you get to the boring late-meta phase where the same three power lists are dominating every tournament podium. Why would you want to do that for another six months when you could just shake it all up and go back to the exciting new meta stage?

It would be if this were a game like Hearthstone or whatever where meta changes are rapid, but in model-based games they are glacial. Building an army takes time, so people tend to stick to what they have or what is easy rather than experimenting a lot. Even the people who commonly attend tournaments often only start innovating after they've finished a standard netdeck list to fall back on.

While you have the usual culprits (LotFP, Maggotkin, Thunder Lizard) at the top, there's also been a decent bit of others at the top, and a general shift to less quality and more bodies. We've seen a TL list that opted for the cheap Arks instead and brought some Teradons (Hell, I've seen I believe two Dracothion lists win events iirc). We've seen IJ players shift to Big Waagh for greater flexibility. We've even seen a Gitz player win with Squigs. Etc, etc..

It's not as simple as going from the wild west of innovation to a figured out meta. It's more like a mess at the start with unupdated armies, then people slowly adjusting, and once things are figured out you start to see some innovation again to deal with the current meta.

By the time people are somewhat adjusted to the changes from this book, the 6-month period is over and we're onto the next.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Vastus

[Freypal]

3 hours ago, NauticalSoup said:

I just want a Sigmar version fo the tempest of war deck.

I could not care less about GW's vision of a constantly evolving meta for AoS. It's hard enough as is trying to teach 3.0 to new players without wacky season rules forcing you to unlearn how to win every year.

100% this. In 40k I couldn't care less about all the mission packs they keep introducing and I don't play frequently enough to learn all the rules they keep changing each "season". Same with AoS. The tempest of war deck is brilliant for casual play and I really hope it comes to AoS too. 

[Freypal]

21 minutes ago, Iksdee said:

As a casual player i am just going to play the 3.0 core rules + tomes. I can imagine that this is fun for people who play like 3 games a week but i am glad if i can play a game once every 3 months, its not worth it for me to keep relearning all the rules. While i like min maxing the best matched play lists i am slowly but surely moving toward more narrative/ open play style games. In the end it just want to play with the models i have spend so much time and effort on. 

This too. Pretty much sums up how I play!

[Kadeton]

4 minutes ago, Vastus said:

Building an army takes time, so people tend to stick to what they have or what is easy rather than experimenting a lot.

By the time people are somwhat adjusted to the changes from this book, the 6-month period is over and we're onto the next.

Yes, I suppose it depends on your perspective. I very much stick to what I have, but I'm fortunate to be at the point now where I have enough to cover quite a few options across the three armies I collect.

At the beginning of a new meta, taking a mix of whatever you have will work just fine competitively, because that's what most people will be doing. As the meta becomes more settled, that stops working as the competitive lists get more and more meta-optimised - you either have to optimise along with them, or accept that you're not going to compete. It's true that the meta keeps shifting and evolving a bit after that point, but not to the extent that the armies which got shoved to the bottom of the pile ever make their way back to the top.

At the end of the day, every GHB meta-shift is going to be hard on some armies. If one or more of my armies is going to struggle for an entire meta cycle, I'd rather that cycle was only 6 months rather than 12.

[wolyhammer]

1 hour ago, Freypal said:

This too. Pretty much sums up how I play!

Have you checked out the Warcoda packs? A real nice addition if you are using the Matched Plays rules from the Core book.

https://aosshorts.com/warcoda/

[Mnil]

Don't know the source.  Points for LRL

received_959722194695548.webp

Edited June 16, 2022 by Mnil

[KarrWolves]

3 minutes ago, Mnil said:

Don't know the source.  Points for LRL

received_959722194695548.webp 21.27 kB · 5 downloads

220 for sentinels?

Weren't there rumors that they were being nerfed and had their points reduced?

[Enoby]

I totally understand people's concerns with over-complicating AoS's rules, and certainly these are a far cry from older iterations of AoS.

On the other hand though, I appreciate matched play is becoming its own thing. Previously, matched play was seen as default AoS - despite the stereotype of "competitive" being complex, matched games were the easiest to pick up and play and had less complex in-game rules than narrative and open too (when accounting for their battleplans).

It was to the extent that matched play was the default no-frills mode rather than a true competitive mode. Basically, "we added points and some simple battleplans" and called it a style of play.  

Now it seems like they're turning GHB matched play into a true competitive mode, with all the bells and whistles to do that. This does mean it's more complex, but also gives matched play more of an identity than "that mode you play with a stranger".

Don't get me wrong, that casual simple points game still needs to exist - but perhaps they should have four modes of play: Open, Narrative/PtG, Matched/Competitive, Standard. 

For a long time, matched play has lacked an identity beyond being the version of AoS that is the easiest to play with everyone. Now it seems to have transformed into a true competitive mode with rotating seasonal alternate rules (rather than just new battleplans). 

Again, that standard mode still needs to exist and it's probably what most people will play the most, but it's good that there's a true competitive mode now too. 

[wolyhammer]

16 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I totally understand people's concerns with over-complicating AoS's rules, and certainly these are a far cry from older iterations of AoS.

On the other hand though, I appreciate matched play is becoming its own thing. Previously, matched play was seen as default AoS - despite the stereotype of "competitive" being complex, matched games were the easiest to pick up and play and had less complex in-game rules than narrative and open too (when accounting for their battleplans).

It was to the extent that matched play was the default no-frills mode rather than a true competitive mode. Basically, "we added points and some simple battleplans" and called it a style of play.  

Now it seems like they're turning GHB matched play into a true competitive mode, with all the bells and whistles to do that. This does mean it's more complex, but also gives matched play more of an identity than "that mode you play with a stranger".

Don't get me wrong, that casual simple points game still needs to exist - but perhaps they should have four modes of play: Open, Narrative/PtG, Matched/Competitive, Standard. 

For a long time, matched play has lacked an identity beyond being the version of AoS that is the easiest to play with everyone. Now it seems to have transformed into a true competitive mode with rotating seasonal alternate rules (rather than just new battleplans). 

Again, that standard mode still needs to exist and it's probably what most people will play the most, but it's good that there's a true competitive mode now too. 

What would you count as Standard, the Matched Play rules in the Core book? I've always liked the basic battle tactics there.