The Rumour Thread

[RocketPropelledGrenade]

1 minute ago, KingBrodd said:

New Model Monday for the Gloomspite Warband?

I'm always down for Underworlds previews, and I doubt we'll be seeing any more previews for AoS proper for a bit, given the roadmap said this weekend's preorders were all we get for 2022 (I could see previews for a 2023 Battletome coming out, but not until very late this month or even December). So yeah, that'd be cool.

[Aleser]

31 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

New Model Monday for the Gloomspite Warband?

Ye this might be this monday or next. They have to be released early december so this is perfect time to show them.

[Malakithe]

The one time I decide to buy a boxset and there is a nerf less then a full day after...I get it but still stings

[RocketPropelledGrenade]

57 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

The one time I decide to buy a boxset and there is a nerf less then a full day after...I get it but still stings

To be fair to GW, the same day the NDA embargo on rules reveals went out, they revealed the errata. That's as good transparency as you can reasonably ask for--the leaks were outside their channels. They've done crappy things at times, but I don't rate this as one of them at all.

[Chikout]

2 hours ago, RocketPropelledGrenade said:

To be fair to GW, the same day the NDA embargo on rules reveals went out, they revealed the errata. That's as good transparency as you can reasonably ask for--the leaks were outside their channels. They've done crappy things at times, but I don't rate this as one of them at all.

Also the fact that the change is only for the English language versions is interesting. It suggests that they had a final balance pass which made it into the international versions but not the English one. That's a pretty big mistake but it's not the same as the Leagues situation. 

[Jagged Red Lines]

4 hours ago, RocketPropelledGrenade said:

To be fair to GW, the same day the NDA embargo on rules reveals went out, they revealed the errata. That's as good transparency as you can reasonably ask for--the leaks were outside their channels. They've done crappy things at times, but I don't rate this as one of them at all.

To be fair, the errata came out a good six or seven hours *after* the preorders went live. So there's likely to be many people who rushed to buy, thinking that the box would sell out, who are now regretting their decision.

Personally, I've just been building knights to run in the other subfaction, so it doesn't bother me too much. But I understand people's disappointment - it would have been much better to have these the same moment that preorders went live.

[Beliman]

I feel that this are more clarifications aor GW just a polishing of rules than actual nerfs.

[TreelordRecent]

Normally around the time of the year they reveal the Christmas battleforces. So we should get this in the next couple of weeks. They tend to be released towards the end of November so they can arrive in time for Christmas… rumours are skaven, nighthaunt, stormcast for AoS. Can’t remember the last one that was rumoured by Valrak.

[Sigmarusvult]

12 minutes ago, TreelordRecent said:

Can’t remember the last one that was rumoured by Valrak.

It was Sylvaneth.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

40 minutes ago, TreelordRecent said:

Normally around the time of the year they reveal the Christmas battleforces. So we should get this in the next couple of weeks. They tend to be released towards the end of November so they can arrive in time for Christmas… rumours are skaven, nighthaunt, stormcast for AoS. Can’t remember the last one that was rumoured by Valrak.

 

27 minutes ago, Sigmarusvult said:

It was Sylvaneth.

I was actually pretty surprised by this selection, since we had Stormcast, Nighthaunt and Skaven in 2019. Although I suppose that's not a big deal 3 years later.

[KingBrodd]

10 hours ago, Aleser said:

Ye this might be this monday or next. They have to be released early december so this is perfect time to show them.

 

10 hours ago, RocketPropelledGrenade said:

I'm always down for Underworlds previews, and I doubt we'll be seeing any more previews for AoS proper for a bit, given the roadmap said this weekend's preorders were all we get for 2022 (I could see previews for a 2023 Battletome coming out, but not until very late this month or even December). So yeah, that'd be cool.

Im hoping that none of the Gitz looking Rumour Engine pertain to this Warband so they have a greater chance of a Wave 2!!

[Marcvs]

2 hours ago, Beliman said:

I feel that this are more clarifications aor GW just a polishing of rules than actual nerfs.

It's an interesting question and would be nice to know if these were actual corrections of misprints/typos and the like or deliberate "nerfs". Changing a "4+" to "5+" doesn't look like a clarification to me, same for the Nurgle banner thing honestly.

[Gitzdee]

2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

 

I was actually pretty surprised by this selection, since we had Stormcast, Nighthaunt and Skaven in 2019. Although I suppose that's not a big deal 3 years later.

I actually think Skaven is the odd choice here. The others all have fancy new models they could sell. I dont see why they would do Skaven unless there are plastic rat ogres in there. I do like the new underworlds warband but i dont expect that to be included in an AoS box.

[JerekKruger]

36 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

It's an interesting question and would be nice to know if these were actual corrections of misprints/typos and the like or deliberate "nerfs". Changing a "4+" to "5+" doesn't look like a clarification to me, same for the Nurgle banner thing honestly.

I don't believe they were misprints, but I also don't mind that much. 4+ rally on elite units was too much, 5+ is still good. The Nurgle banner change still allows you to build a really tough midfield objective holding unit, it just doesn't protect other nearby units. Both seem fine to me 

[Beliman]

21 hours ago, Marcvs said:

It's an interesting question and would be nice to know if these were actual corrections of misprints/typos and the like or deliberate "nerfs". Changing a "4+" to "5+" doesn't look like a clarification to me, same for the Nurgle banner thing honestly.

Maybe, but I'm not saying that they are missprints.

I'm just saying that this FAQ feels like a hit more rules polishing to me:

Rallly the troops on a 4+ (better than barbarians, skavens, gobbos, etc...) for elite tier units... it felt strange (Varanguars on 4+ was comical). Remember that rally the troops is not a new unit that comes to the rescue, but people joining an existing unit in the middle of the fight.

I can understant that the banner seems like a nerf but I get why they changed that (imagine a big bubble of 12+" from a 30 man CW... weird). That's a big cloud of flies.

Imo, Daemonic Speed seems to be the only "clear" nerf.

Remember skinks with the same scales as Saurus? This FAQ seems to be the same.

 

Edit: Some reviews says that the Nurgle banner was corrected in the ability cards, it seems that they were written later.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Beliman

[KingBrodd]

1 hour ago, Gitzdee said:

I actually think Skaven is the odd choice here. The others all have fancy new models they could sell. I dont see why they would do Skaven unless there are plastic rat ogres in there. I do like the new underworlds warband but i dont expect that to be included in an AoS box.

Skaven is an odd choice. Im assuming its a bunch of Clanrats maybe some Stormvermin and a Verminlord?

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, JerekKruger said:

I don't believe they were misprints, but I also don't mind that much. 4+ rally on elite units was too much, 5+ is still good. The Nurgle banner change still allows you to build a really tough midfield objective holding unit, it just doesn't protect other nearby units. Both seem fine to me 

Oh I like both changes as well, they make both options much less of an obvious pick over the rest (Nurgle banner pre correction was the only one affecting units other than the bearer). I was just curious to know if they were actual corrections or pre-release nerfs, as each of these would point to a different type of problem in their production process

[Ogregut]

5 hours ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

To be fair, the errata came out a good six or seven hours *after* the preorders went live. So there's likely to be many people who rushed to buy, thinking that the box would sell out, who are now regretting their decision.

Personally, I've just been building knights to run in the other subfaction, so it doesn't bother me too much. But I understand people's disappointment - it would have been much better to have these the same moment that preorders went live.

I think the people who bought it (like myself) did so more for the models than rules. An errata was going to come regardless. It just happened on the same day and not with the usual FAQ and errata. 

I've no disappointment at all and I'm still eager to get my hands on the models and read the background. 

[Chikout]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

Oh I like both changes as well, they make both options much less of an obvious pick over the rest (Nurgle banner pre correction was the only one affecting units other than the bearer). I was just curious to know if they were actual corrections or pre-release nerfs, as each of these would point to a different type of problem in their production process

These changes are already in  non English language versions of the book. So an English version of the book containing these changes must have been sent to translators quite a while ago.  For whatever reason an outdated version of the English rules must have got sent to printers by mistake. In a way it’s actually encouraging to see this. Someone internally looked at these rules, decided they were too strong and changed them before the public had to step in Leagues of Votann style. This is some pretty direct evidence of good internal balancing work being done by gw. 

[Jagged Red Lines]

1 hour ago, Ogregut said:

I think the people who bought it (like myself) did so more for the models than rules. An errata was going to come regardless. It just happened on the same day and not with the usual FAQ and errata. 

I've no disappointment at all and I'm still eager to get my hands on the models and read the background. 

Absolutely the same. But other people who bought into the army because of the rules, have a right to be critical of how GW handled it. It's arguably true that the errata should have gone live at the same time the preorders went up.

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

I was just curious to know if they were actual corrections or pre-release nerfs

The Nurgle banner and the Tzeentch mark were clearly corrections. As the original wording for each was unclear or incomplete. 

The Everchosen rule and the alteration of the casting roll for Daemonic Speed were obvious nerfs. 

Interestingly, Honest Wargamer mentioned that the battletome feels an older book. Lots of customisation which they've since removed from the later books.

I wonder if this means they'll get a toned down, simplified updated book in a year's time.

[Ogregut]

39 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

Absolutely the same. But other people who bought into the army because of the rules, have a right to be critical of how GW handled it. It's arguably true that the errata should have gone live at the same time the preorders went up.

The Nurgle banner and the Tzeentch mark were clearly corrections. As the original wording for each was unclear or incomplete. 

The Everchosen rule and the alteration of the casting roll for Daemonic Speed were obvious nerfs. 

Interestingly, Honest Wargamer mentioned that the battletome feels an older book. Lots of customisation which they've since removed from the later books.

I wonder if this means they'll get a toned down, simplified updated book in a year's time.

Don't forget the changes were only in the English edition. My guess is an older version was used for the English edition by mistake meaning they aren't really nerfs as it's what the final version should have been. 

[RocketPropelledGrenade]

8 hours ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

To be fair, the errata came out a good six or seven hours *after* the preorders went live. So there's likely to be many people who rushed to buy, thinking that the box would sell out, who are now regretting their decision.

Personally, I've just been building knights to run in the other subfaction, so it doesn't bother me too much. But I understand people's disappointment - it would have been much better to have these the same moment that preorders went live.

That's fair. They did warn people there would be errata, but having it up sooner would have been better. I for one bought it for the models and general playstyle, not for overpowered Host nonsense, so I really didn't care, but I can see there being others who might have been impacted negatively, and that is not great.

[JerekKruger]

1 hour ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

Absolutely the same. But other people who bought into the army because of the rules, have a right to be critical of how GW handled it. It's arguably true that the errata should have gone live at the same time the preorders went up.

Presumably people can cancel their preorders if these changes really are deal breakers for them. GW changing this when it did is better (from the point of view of someone bought the box based on the leaked/previewed rules) than GW changing them in a balance release in a few months time, long after returns cease to be an option (and you have to be a pretty huge optimist to imagine the 4+ Rally was going to survive for long).

1 hour ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

The Everchosen rule and the alteration of the casting roll for Daemonic Speed were obvious nerfs. 

I tend to agree, although if the "errors" really are only in the English version then perhaps not. You can preorder the box in Germany, so if the German version doesn't contain the errors (for example) that suggests the English version was using an older version of the rule that wasn't meant to go to print. I'd consider that an error rather than a nerf.

[EccentricCircle]

2 hours ago, Chikout said:

These changes are already in  non English language versions of the book. So an English version of the book containing these changes must have been sent to translators quite a while ago.  For whatever reason an outdated version of the English rules must have got sent to printers by mistake. In a way it’s actually encouraging to see this. Someone internally looked at these rules, decided they were too strong and changed them before the public had to step in Leagues of Votann style. This is some pretty direct evidence of good internal balancing work being done by gw. 

My guess is that the English speaking world is their main market, so they need a lot more of those books, and start printing them long before the translations. Thus they were able to update the other editions even though the English ones had already gone to press.

[GenericEdgyName]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/11/06/sunday-preview-cadia-stands-again-while-da-goff-rocker-tunes-up/

Looks like we'll see what the battleforces are this week, but not much more for us AoS folks!