The Rumour Thread

[Gitzdee]

9 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. 

I can get behind this idea but its easier if GW just tells us the GHB is now the go to competitive thing and casuals should look towards the other modes (Thondia). I have said before that i think Open play has way more potential and could easily be a mode enjoyed by casuals like me. Just make the Battleplans more like Warcry and your half way there and add optional list building or something similar. I still have to buy the Thondia book but that one looked like a fun addition to the game.

Another thing i really want to see supported more is 1000 point games. I feel like a lot of people want to play this or at least have tried it a few times. But using the standard 2000 point matched play rules just doesn't balance out as intended imho.

[KingBrodd]

I truly feel for everyone who is affected by the GHB but this and rules leaks always confirms my stance as a hobbyist and lore enthusiast over a player because I cant imagine how stressful it can be to just want to enjoy your hobby.

[Marcvs]

3 minutes ago, Iksdee said:

I can get behind this idea but its easier if GW just tells us the GHB is now the go to competitive thing and casuals should look towards the other modes (Thondia). I have said before that i think Open play has way more potential and could easily be a mode enjoyed by casuals like me. Just make the Battleplans more like Warcry and your half way there and add optional list building or something similar. I still have to buy the Thondia book but that one looked like a fun addition to the game.

Another thing i really want to see supported more is 1000 point games. I feel like a lot of people want to play this or at least have tried it a few times. But using the standard 2000 point matched play rules just doesn't balance out as intended imho.

The new GHB and the stratification of rules of 3.0 also made me consider the idea of a "Casual Mode" as an interesting option. A few quick ideas which of course would need to be refined etc etc:

• Core Rules + Battletomes
• A battleplan generator with a 1d6 table for how the objectives are placed and 1d6 for deployment zones. Streamlined scoring (control 1, 2, more could work)
• (the most unlikely considering the €€€ implications) lower point cap and restrictions to list building similar to the "no unit which is 50%+1 of your points"

[Nerdkingdan]

So I’m confused here.   I’ve been playing AOS 3 casual.  My theme list I wanted to play had no monsters, who cares I’m casual.  Show up play, learn what I could go home, win some lose some.

This idea that the game should be altered around casual play sounds more like people who want to win without effort to learn rules or adapt.   If you are playing casual your army and units don’t need to be best in slot.   Your reach unit not getting buffed shouldn’t matter.   Battle pack rules are not a long read, casual should mean you are not optimising, you don’t need to change your list, I’m not.   what am I missing here?

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Nerdkingdan

[Marcvs]

11 minutes ago, Nerdkingdan said:

So I’m confused here.   I’ve been playing AOS 3 casual.  My theme list I wanted to play had no monsters, who cares I’m casual.  Show up play, learn what I could go home, win some lose some.

This idea that the game should be altered around casual play sounds more like people who want to win without effort to learn rules or adapt.   If you are playing casual your army and units don’t need to be best in slot.   Your reach unit not getting buffed shouldn’t matter.   Battle pack rules are not a long read, casual should mean you are not optimising, you don’t need to change your list, I’m not.   what am I missing here?

 

This is all based on personal experiences of course, so it's great that it works for you. My own point of view comes from my (much less invested) clubmates and it's not a matter of "power" or even "winning", but of sheer amount of rules that you have to remember/apply "just" to play a game.

Controlling objectives is a good example: before you just walked on the objective and counted the number of models. One army (Ogors) had a specific rule and that was it. Then (3.0) you had to consider if there were monsters, or 5+ wound models. Now (ghb 2022) you also have to consider if there's units which are in the specific battalion, considering that you might have two identical units in your list only one of which is in the battalion, then multiply those by 3. I think the stratification is getting a bit too far and I am concerned because I want the game to remain popular at my club and not just among the more invested players, that's all.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Marcvs

[Beliman]

I don't think that "complexity" is the right word to use.

I'm perfectly fine with what GW wants to accomplish with all this new patches/ghb/whatever:

• Give more tools to capture objectives with basic troops: GOOD
• Try to fix the Coherency rules with the option to attack in two ranks: GOOD
• A battalion to kill basic troops with other battlelines: GOOD
• A tool to attack earlier in the fight phase vs Elite-troops (ambush): GOOD
• Give some armies a power-level when they kill strong units: GOOD
• Some kind of structure to build armies: GOOD
• Some kind of structure to build battalions: GOOD
• Keywords for heavy interactions ON the table: GOOD

I'm fine with that complexity (btw, I like it), but I find really strange that they need 5 layers of rules (each with their own specific labels and diferent Abilities or interactions with the main Core Rules) to accomplish that. We know that GW can do that with a lot less bloat.

Another thing that I'm not a fan of is using Seasoned Modular Rules (SMR™ from now on) to change basic core mechanics (ex.: keywords having an extra unique rule, but sadly tied to an specific battlepack). Main core mechanics should only be changed when a new edition is released.

 

Edit: Btw, this things aren't about casual players. This new rules are trying to fix some 3.0 issues (coherency, monster-smash, etc...) and they are GOOD. People that love monster-smash can still play it, but battlelines and troops are going to be there too. My main problem is how are implemented in the game and why they chose SMR™ unlike other GW games (e.g: unit-types).

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Beliman
grammar

[Gitzdee]

47 minutes ago, Nerdkingdan said:

So I’m confused here.   I’ve been playing AOS 3 casual.  My theme list I wanted to play had no monsters, who cares I’m casual.  Show up play, learn what I could go home, win some lose some.

This idea that the game should be altered around casual play sounds more like people who want to win without effort to learn rules or adapt.   If you are playing casual your army and units don’t need to be best in slot.   Your reach unit not getting buffed shouldn’t matter.   Battle pack rules are not a long read, casual should mean you are not optimising, you don’t need to change your list, I’m not.   what am I missing here?

 

I just want a more stripped down version of the rules. If i want to play a game with my wife i have to remember everything from both armies and explain it to her and give her some choices of what she can do. She is never ever going to read a rule book. So a game mode that is more stripped down is great for playing with people like that. 

Also want to add that i am no native english speaker. I had to read the new fighting in ranks rule 7 times and still kind of get it. 

Casual has nothing to do with not optimizing imho. I just want to be able to play the game in a not competitive way without the need to alter the rules myself and have those rules be supported. We have already have a few game modes and i think such a "casual" mode could be a great addition.

[Jazzbeaux]

4 minutes ago, Iksdee said:

Also want to add that i am no native english speaker. I had to read the new fighting in ranks rule 7 times and still kind of get it. 

I can understand that, as a native english speaker it still had me confused.

When checking range for melee weapons, if in a Galletian Veterans unit you can attack as long as the attacking model is within 1/2" of a model from the same unit that is within 1/2" of the enemy unit.

Thats how I think it works.

[Flippy]

1 hour ago, Nerdkingdan said:

So I’m confused here.   I’ve been playing AOS 3 casual.  My theme list I wanted to play had no monsters, who cares I’m casual.  Show up play, learn what I could go home, win some lose some.

This idea that the game should be altered around casual play sounds more like people who want to win without effort to learn rules or adapt.   If you are playing casual your army and units don’t need to be best in slot.   Your reach unit not getting buffed shouldn’t matter.   Battle pack rules are not a long read, casual should mean you are not optimising, you don’t need to change your list, I’m not.   what am I missing here?

 

The effort is relative. People learn and internalise the rules at various pace; I have a close friend who is really into board games. Now, every time we played he used to bring a different game; I could handle this, but past a certain point it just becomes a chore to learn the rules. If you play AoS once a month then maybe it’s better to stick to the core matched battle pack (Contest of Generals).

[chosen_of_khaine]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

• Give more tools to capture objectives with basic troops: GOOD
• Try to fix the Coherency rules with the option to attack in two ranks: GOOD
• A battalion to kill basic troops with other battlelines: GOOD why?
• A tool to attack earlier in the fight phase vs Elite-troops (ambush): GOOD why?
• Give some armies a power-level when they kill strong units: GOOD again, why?
• Some kind of structure to build armies: GOOD
• Some kind of structure to build battalions: GOOD
• Keywords for heavy interactions ON the table: GOOD huh?

I'm not sure how half of these actually make the game better in any way. The first two are definitely improvements, but most of the rest just seem like changing the game for the sake of "mixing it up", which just adds confusion between mission packs. The changes in this pack in particular seem like they should be core rules changes, not changes that only apply for specific missions, but GW isn't willing to go all-in on them just yet and wants you to pay for an extra book each year to test them out.

[chosen_of_khaine]

2 hours ago, KarrWolves said:

220 for sentinels?

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

There is no way Sentinels are 220 and Teclis is 950 unless every other army is getting extraordinary points increases as well.

[Jarminiatures]

7 minutes ago, chosen_of_khaine said:

There is no way Sentinels are 220 and Teclis is 950 unless every other army is getting extraordinary points increases as well.

I'm a LRL player, so biased, but these points would be crazy if they're true. No Cathallar either but based on these she'd probably be going up to 160/170.

[Clan's Cynic]

Skaven Path To Glory article.

[Beliman]

23 minutes ago, chosen_of_khaine said:

I'm not sure how half of these actually make the game better in any way. The first two are definitely improvements, but most of the rest just seem like changing the game for the sake of "mixing it up", which just adds confusion between mission packs. The changes in this pack in particular seem like they should be core rules changes, not changes that only apply for specific missions, but GW isn't willing to go all-in on them just yet and wants you to pay for an extra book each year to test them out.

Completely agree. This are not just "battlepacks", this seems to add another layer that tweaks the main core rules. That's what I was trying to say. About why are good or bad, it's completely subjective:

Quote

• A battalion to kill basic troops with other battlelines: GOOD why?

Because I'm a huge fan of rules that can give (or change) new roles to the same unit. Call it a "promotion" or make them "veterans" or whatever, but that's something that I miss from Matched Play (you can do that if you play Path to Glory). It's still tied to a battalion but it's a minor issue, at least for me.

• A tool to attack earlier in the fight phase vs Elite-troops (ambush): GOOD why?

In a game that doens't have diferent variables (Str vs Th or whatever), I'm happy that there are some tools for basic troops to assault more elite (low number troops). There are still problems (without rend or mw, it will be really hard to crack that 2+saves, just hope for a lot of 1s!). Maybe I'm wrong, but I can see why they did that.

• Give some armies a power-level when they kill strong units: GOOD again, why?

Not again, I'm just talking Prime Hunters and this stuff. Even if it didn't accomplish a lot for Goblins & co. at least GW tried to do something.

• Keywords for heavy interactions ON the table: GOOD huh?

I'm fine with abilities/tables/actions tied to keywords. It's a clean and straightforward system.

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Beliman

[Sahrial]

Sylvaneth points from potato cam photo on discord

 

Battleline:

Dryads 100

Tree revenants 110

 

Conditional battleline:

Treelord, oakenbrow army 260

Kurnoth hunters, heartwood army

Bows 230

Scythes 250

Swords 250

Spite revenants, dreadwood army 105

Revenant Seekers, Harvestboon army, 235

Spiterider Lancers, Harvestboon army, 210

 

Leaders:

Arch-Revenant 120

Branchwraith - Unlisted -

Branchwych 130

Drycha 335

Ylthari (and guardians) 180

Lady of Vines 325

Warsong Revenant 305

Alarielle 840

Treelord Ancient 360

Spirit of Durthu 370

 

Other:

Gossamid archers 220

Skaeth’s Wild Hunt 110

 

Endless spells:

Spiteswarm Hive 40

Gladewyrm 50

Vengeful skull root 60

 

Awakened Wyldwood 0 faction terrain

 

Allies: CoS, Fyreslayers, IDK, SCE

[Gitzdee]

24 minutes ago, Sahrial said:

Sylvaneth points from potato cam photo on discord

 

Battleline:

Dryads 100

Tree revenants 110

 

Conditional battleline:

Treelord, oakenbrow army 260

Kurnoth hunters, heartwood army

Bows 230

Scythes 250

Swords 250

Spite revenants, dreadwood army 105

Revenant Seekers, Harvestboon army, 235

Spiterider Lancers, Harvestboon army, 210

 

Leaders:

Arch-Revenant 120

Branchwraith - Unlisted -

Branchwych 130

Drycha 335

Ylthari (and guardians) 180

Lady of Vines 325

Warsong Revenant 305

Alarielle 840

Treelord Ancient 360

Spirit of Durthu 370

 

Other:

Gossamid archers 220

Skaeth’s Wild Hunt 110

 

Endless spells:

Spiteswarm Hive 40

Gladewyrm 50

Vengeful skull root 60

 

Awakened Wyldwood 0 faction terrain

 

Allies: CoS, Fyreslayers, IDK, SCE

Branchwraith getting replaced by Lady of Vines is kind of expected.

Do i see Wanderers Allies? That would make me a very happy person.

[Landohammer]

7 hours 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. 

If you are going to maintain that few games I would personally avoid buying the GHB altogether. Its not meant for your play style and thats ok. You would be paying ~$50 for rules you would only use for 4 games. At that point its just a matter of pragmatics.  You are not getting your money's worth.

In my region most folks plays games weekly, and with tournaments monthly. The GHB's are valuable to us and hotly anticipated. They keep the meta fresh and prevent things from getting stale. 

1 hour ago, Sahrial said:

Sylvaneth points from potato cam photo on discord

 

 

So the unlocked battleline is exciting, but these point hikes are absolutely huge. We are seeing 44-50% hikes on some units. And alarielle is +100 despite never being taken currently and only marginally improved.

I can only hope the game in general is climbing in points ratio. Otherwise this does not look good for trees

[NauticalSoup]

5 hours ago, Enoby said:

ll 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".

It's not really more of an identity though in practice because matched play is still going to be "that mode you play with a stranger", while also being more complex.

This is what happened with 40k, matched got increasingly complicated and burdensome and now they're trying to find ways to reel it back with broad slapdash rebalances and stripping down access to CP. 

I don't want it to go in that direction, my experience with 40k's increasingly sophisticated matched play rules resulted in anything short of fully competitive event-level play just being a sad unfinished experience where my opponent was unable to successfully process their own mechanics without help. I already felt 2.0 was getting too complex so I haven't been a fan of 3.0's move to bring the game closer to how 40k treats matched play which has turned almost everything into a super competitive, super complicated mess inaccessible to people who don't want to think about warhammer every day of the week. I think people here have a vision that a proper competitive format will give people choice but in my experience, it just completely displaces most of the other options because a structured format is too necessary for pick-up games.

Edited June 16, 2022 by NauticalSoup
typos

[RyantheFett]

I come from the Star Wars mini games and those point changes always did good things for the game. The meta would be getting stale with the same few units and the shake up would give bad units a time to shine. Of course I am not sure if AoS point/rule changes work the same way. Looks like the swordsmen for both LRL and Stormcast got a ****** ton better?

As for the point we need them to leak the point changes already. I am getting tired of all these rumored one that kill my factions I like to play lol. At least give me some good ones for my units.

[Elmir]

18 hours 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.

This. If they are going to be doing a 180 every 6 months on what type of unit you should be spamming, that's tedious on it's own. I think they are just trying to mimic computer game style seasons somehow... but that just doesn't work in a game where painting and assembly takes as long as it does imo. 

[Vasshpit]

All this rules back and forth but no one is going to mention that theres a troggoth type on the cover with no model!!!...

Looks sourbreath to me. It has no thick rocky skin....

Not cool, Gdubs, not cool...

😶

[zilberfrid]

29 minutes ago, Elmir said:

This. If they are going to be doing a 180 every 6 months on what type of unit you should be spamming, that's tedious on it's own. I think they are just trying to mimic computer game style seasons somehow... but that just doesn't work in a game where painting and assembly takes as long as it does imo. 

But changing the meta has a direct correllation with selling more boxes...

[Baron Klatz]

Can’t show leak pics here but some chaos warriors battletome pics are up of their unit section and we got to see Belakor’s Legionaries facing frontward.
 

They look a lot like the Freeguild dudes at the bottom left of the War of the Sky Portals art:

 

Spikier of course but have the round shields, semi-wide-brimmed helmets and studded jerkins with semi-Roman armor that give them a Roman + England/north European Guard flair. Could very well be this was a sneak peak from 2018 at what the new standard Freeguild and their traitor counterparts will look like.

 

4 hours ago, Sahrial said:

Allies: CoS, Fyreslayers, IDK, SCE

Noice. Plain CoS was expected since the Dawncrusades made the Fyreslayers & Deepkin drop their pretenses for stuff like only the duardin or aelves from them. So now they’re all fair game to support the plant people from steamtanks to hydras.

Fyreslayers is a really nice surprise now that they don’t need an Ironoak commander anymore to get in duardin. It’s been noted before how well Fyreslayers allies work with Sylvaneth to give them more punch so this is pretty cool. (And kinda makes me if Hammerhal will bond them closer together in the future as the main link between Ghyran & Aqshy)

Also battleline Kurnoth Hunters, huzzah!

13 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

All this rules back and forth but no one is going to mention that theres a troggoth type on the cover with no model!!!...

Looks sourbreath to me. It has no thick rocky skin....

Not cool, Gdubs, not cool...

😶

Might just be stylized but you know, could be a subtle hint at what the Gloomspite update might bring. Never enough Troggoth heroes.

I’m just happy they benefit from the heavy infantry 2nd row rules. That would’ve been the worst thing if they were on the cover to represent the tunnel battles of Gallet but got left out of the juicy seasonal tactics.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Baron Klatz

[Gailon]

22 hours ago, Neverchosen said:

I am going to opt out of the GHB this time I do not play enough lately and when I do we have been going mostly core rules. Still sounds like a fun spanner in the works...

 

Also no this has nothing to do with having just completed my Ogors...

I think this is actually makes a pretty critical point. With GHB's coming twice a year, introducing more complicated rules, and with the battlescrolls making small changes quarterly, it sure seems like the rules can get way too much for your average player. As most people can only get a game together every few months. 

I expect the number of people who just play the 'core rules' to grow, and the willingness of regular players to just play a 'core rules' game to increase. 

That seems like a pretty strong direction for the game. The heavily involved players have a lot of new and interesting rules to really chew into. I am currently in a stretch where I am playing about 5 times a month. I LOVE the new rules, and complicated options, bring it on. 

But I know that when that changes I will appreciate the ability to just play a core rules game and not be up on the newest GHB. 

[NauticalSoup]

I would like to see more willingness to play without battlepacks, although the lack of diversity in the core rules missions is a bit unfortunate.