The Rumour Thread

[MitGas]

They need to stop messing with AoS rules. Everything since the start of 3rd ed has been detrimental to the game‘s popularity over here and I absolutely hate that. I can pinpoint the drop in general interest with each new rule change in the Warhammer discord here… 😖 AoS being a beer and pretzels game really was a hit here. I understand that one can omit a lot if rules bloat but I don‘t think they understand the situation - GW games are more about fun for most players and much less about balance, they‘ll never manage to balance it perfectly anyways. 
 

….people actually suggested to play 40k now as they find those rules better 😂😂😂. 
 

GW desperately needs a better rules team. Has to be said. I‘m sorry for complaining, it‘s definitely not easy to write great rules but I‘m only complaining because I want the best for AoS. When it comes to the people I know who play, more and more difficult rules are not the answer. 
 

there‘s also a reason why people like to play Warcry over Killteam… (it‘stherules🤫)

 

[Vicar in a tutu]

45 minutes ago, MitGas said:

They need to stop messing with AoS rules. Everything since the start of 3rd ed has been detrimental to the game‘s popularity over here and I absolutely hate that. I can pinpoint the drop in general interest with each new rule change in the Warhammer discord here… 😖 AoS being a beer and pretzels game really was a hit here. I understand that one can omit a lot if rules bloat but I don‘t think they understand the situation - GW games are more about fun for most players and much less about balance, they‘ll never manage to balance it perfectly anyways. 
 

….people actually suggested to play 40k now as they find those rules better 😂😂😂. 
 

GW desperately needs a better rules team. Has to be said. I‘m sorry for complaining, it‘s definitely not easy to write great rules but I‘m only complaining because I want the best for AoS. When it comes to the people I know who play, more and more difficult rules are not the answer. 
 

there‘s also a reason why people like to play Warcry over Killteam… (it‘stherules🤫)

 

They will mess and change the rules constantly. That's part of the monetization strategy. The edition schedule warrants a new edition every 3rd year. It goes without saying that new editions will tweak the rules so that they can pitch the edition as being something new. I don't really care about this as I don't play the game (only paint and collect). In addition to new editions every 3 years, there are also seasons and all kinds of stuff to mix things up. However, no matter how good rules writers they have, the games are so vast and have so many models and units that getting it right is almost impossible, I imagine. 

[EntMan]

53 minutes ago, Vicar in a tutu said:

They will mess and change the rules constantly. That's part of the monetization strategy. The edition schedule warrants a new edition every 3rd year. It goes without saying that new editions will tweak the rules so that they can pitch the edition as being something new. I don't really care about this as I don't play the game (only paint and collect). In addition to new editions every 3 years, there are also seasons and all kinds of stuff to mix things up. However, no matter how good rules writers they have, the games are so vast and have so many models and units that getting it right is almost impossible, I imagine. 

In my more cynical moments I wouldn't put it past GW to subtly trash the rules in the run up to a new addition, to then make the New Edition New Rules more attractive.

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, Vicar in a tutu said:

They will mess and change the rules constantly. That's part of the monetization strategy. The edition schedule warrants a new edition every 3rd year. It goes without saying that new editions will tweak the rules so that they can pitch the edition as being something new. I don't really care about this as I don't play the game (only paint and collect). In addition to new editions every 3 years, there are also seasons and all kinds of stuff to mix things up. However, no matter how good rules writers they have, the games are so vast and have so many models and units that getting it right is almost impossible, I imagine. 

My main issue is how wide this rules are.

There are a lot of games that have "seasons" too, to shake up the meta or sell books/miniatures every few months or years (without being FAQs, erratas, patches or campaigns). I don't have any problem with that. 

AoS (and 40k) doens't follow the same pattern:

Core Rules are simple with a few complicated points (mainly 3 or 4 active abilities that use diferent units, currencies and timing to do the same) and some mechanics that are not completely polished (ranged attacks, saves-stacking, melee range/bases, etc...).

AoS Seasons are not just add-ons to play in a controlled meta, they seems to be a new layer of rules with the same weight as the main rules. That's bigger than anything, even more than a campaign.

In other words, AoS has a lot of sources of heavy and game-wide rules to learn and master that 1/3 of them are going to change every 6 months. Compared to other games with seasoned rules: diferent battleplans with far away objectives, tables of new generic items, a few new spells, ...

 

Edit: Nothing that we don't know but... another talk about Hashut!!

Spoiler

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Beliman

[Bosskelot]

Yeah both AOS and 40K are following this seasonal model but 40k is currently doing it better. The Chapter Approved are just mission packs and really the most they do to mess with army construction and core rules is halving the starting amount of command points. It's still fundamentally the same game of 40k as if playing Crusade, Core book missions or Tempest of War.

The AOS system is just so weirdly bloated and complex and just ghettoizes the playerbase.

With rumours of 10th ed on the horizon I really hope the 40k team isn't being tempted to implement something similar. There's plenty of other fine ideas to crib from AOS, please do not take one of the worst ones.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Bosskelot

[Ogregut]

I don't get the whole rules bloat. There isn't that much to learn, especially coming from warhammer. 

If you break it down the only new stuff you need to know is 2-3 battilions, a couple of new heroic actions and battle tactics. Its hardly the art of war. 

I also think alot of people forget, matched play is only one way of playing AoS. If you don't want to use the new GHB - don't. Try narrative or open play. 

I'm hoping the book drops soon, I have a event at the end of January and I'll love to try the new rules for it. 

[Neverchosen]

To be honest I think that the AOS team is playing with the idea of having more keywords for AOS and testing it out with these rules. Namely they are distinguishing between elites and hordes, infantry and cavalry, unmounted and mounted heroes and so on with each generals handbook. 

I can imagine the next iteration of Age of Sigmar's rules distinguishing more between these various battlefield roles than they do currently. 

[OkayestDM]

5 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

To be honest I think that the AOS team is playing with the idea of having more keywords for AOS and testing it out with these rules. Namely they are distinguishing between elites and hordes, infantry and cavalry, unmounted and mounted heroes and so on with each generals handbook. 

I can imagine the next iteration of Age of Sigmar's rules distinguishing more between these various battlefield roles than they do currently. 

Agreed. It's been pointed out before, but all of the additional rules that have come out with the GHBs have felt very much like mass playtesting for AoS 4.0. 

I don't know if an expanded keyword system would necessarily be a good thing or not - that would depend heavily on how it is implemented - but there are certainly some cases where it would most helpful.

[JackStreicher]

18 minutes ago, Ogregut said:

I don't get the whole rules bloat. There isn't that much to learn, especially coming from warhammer. 

If you break it down the only new stuff you need to know is 2-3 battilions, a couple of new heroic actions and battle tactics. Its hardly the art of war. 

I also think alot of people forget, matched play is only one way of playing AoS. If you don't want to use the new GHB - don't. Try narrative or open play. 

I'm hoping the book drops soon, I have a event at the end of January and I'll love to try the new rules for it. 

There are a lot very one-sighted assumptions in your comment (no offense intended).

If you break it down, for a (nowadays) casual player as me it goes like this:
Army construction:
- Add Units, choose the General choose artefacts and commant traits. The latter two I have to look up, since I won't have them memorized due to how often I play
- Choosing the battalion is already annoying since I just want to get going and I don't want to read up (again) what each battalion does
- Now back to going over the Warscrolls I added to somewhat remember what they do (in order to play tactical)
- This should be all there is to it now one would assume. Wrong.
- Now I have to go back and look up which battalions are actually the ones useable and what they do.
- Finsihed? Far from it: Now get back to the season rules and try to learn those with all their needlessly complicated formulated rules 
- Then have a look at the new Battleplans
- Try to figure out if Grondspine Incarnates are a thing
- Go back and check if your army makes sense with the new Battlepack
- Finished? Far from it! Go back and check Battle Tactics
- Finally I can get to the Table! (forgetting 3/4 of all the rules and loosing due to it - or due to a random Hell Pit abomination dealing 64 mortal wounds, well, great game!)

---> I usually quit at step 4. I want to play a game, not repeat my master's thesis.

 

"I also think alot of people forget, matched play is only one way of playing AoS. If you don't want to use the new GHB - don't. Try narrative or open play. "
Cute if it was that easy. First you have to find someone who is still playing Age of Overloaded Whateverness. Then you have to talk that person out of playing what most people see as "the true game". And then you will maybe have a pretty crappy game while feeling bad for even asking.

The issue with AoS is that it needs another way to play: Tounament Play = You get to use all those fancy and completely uneeded new Rules | Matched Play = Pickup Games, no Season Rules | Narrative Games = Campaigns, historical battles and all the like
Currently everyone is getting shoehorned into tournament play whether they like it or not. (Most people don't play narrative games when it comes to pickup games).

"I'm hoping the book drops soon, I have a event at the end of January and I'll love to try the new rules for it. "
I am hoping it will be the last of its kind. GW should really focus on narrative play instead of all that tournament nonsense.

Edited December 22, 2022 by JackStreicher

[Sahrial]

What stands out to me is how the seasonal rules make it impossible to really gauge internal and external balance.

If every army is not only being tweaked points-wise, but is also having the meta tweaked outwardly with new mechanics, it’s that much harder to see why something is doing well or doing poorly, because you have more factors coming into the equation.

I’ve thought thought for a while now that what they’re doing is play testing changes for 4th edition, and I know I’m not the only one. I think we’re going to see a very different 4th edition. I dislike the idea that they’re kind of throwing away third as a chance to do extended design work.

Galletian Vets and bounty hunters was a bust across the board, according to everyone I’ve talked to personally. This last GHB basically killed the AoS scene at my local store, and more of them are complaining about 3rd edition as a whole, disliking even battle tactics and grand strategies, though I think it’s more the bad options they have to chose from.

I started playing 30k and am looking at SoIaF minis now too. I haven’t even managed to play a game with my new Ogor rules because no one is interested.

it’s sad.

[Beliman]

42 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

- Finally I can get to the Table!

Gameplay seems a bit complicated too with a lot of memory checks and some gotcha-moments: Battle traits, subfactions, core battallions (3 sources), spell/prayers buff, aura buff, command buff/tricks, hero actions, monstruos rampage, warscroll ability, side-abilities (galletian stuff), keywords/roles changes... and the basic and most important ones: Stats and movement 

I miss them, my 4+ to hit attacks with -1 rend... /sadface

Edited December 22, 2022 by Beliman

[Neverchosen]

37 minutes ago, OkayestDM said:

Agreed. It's been pointed out before, but all of the additional rules that have come out with the GHBs have felt very much like mass playtesting for AoS 4.0. 

I don't know if an expanded keyword system would necessarily be a good thing or not - that would depend heavily on how it is implemented - but there are certainly some cases where it would most helpful.

I think there is a fine balance to be had with expanding the keywords. Namely is it something that the majority of armies have. For example most armies contain some form of at least two of the following unit types Archers, Cavalry, Warmachines, Infantry, and Monsters. 

And is it general enough to cover enough unit types and situations while also not upsetting balance. For example can you introduce a Warmachine key word and still keep K.O. Balanced if their sky ships gain that key word?

The issue is when Keywords get so granular that the game grinds to a halt as players debate if rules contradict or overlap... for example a buff allowing one keyword to attack first and a debuff forcing units with a keyword to attack last are simultaneously at play. With relatively few keywords such rulings are easier but when you have to contend with a dozen keywords things will get overlooked or just plain messy. 

[Ragest]

Imo the problem is that the team want to try some tools that work for warhammer 40k (Their look out sir, coherence, attacking in ranks, tactics, battalions as dettachments using roles instead of specific units, overwatch) but instead of importing them, they change the basis to see what happens.

[Kempak]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

If you break it down, for a (nowadays) casual player as me it goes like this:
Army construction:
- Add Units, choose the General choose artefacts and commant traits. The latter two I have to look up, since I won't have them memorized due to how often I play
- Choosing the battalion is already annoying since I just want to get going and I don't want to read up (again) what each battalion does
- Now back to going over the Warscrolls I added to somewhat remember what they do (in order to play tactical)
- This should be all there is to it now one would assume. Wrong.
- Now I have to go back and look up which battalions are actually the ones useable and what they do.
- Finsihed? Far from it: Now get back to the season rules and try to learn those with all their needlessly complicated formulated rules 
- Then have a look at the new Battleplans
- Try to figure out if Grondspine Incarnates are a thing
- Go back and check if your army makes sense with the new Battlepack
- Finished? Far from it! Go back and check Battle Tactics
- Finally I can get to the Table!

---> I usually quit at step 4. I want to play a game, not repeat my master's thesis.

 

"I also think alot of people forget, matched play is only one way of playing AoS. If you don't want to use the new GHB - don't. Try narrative or open play. "
Cute if it was that easy. First you have to find someone who is still playing Age of Overloaded Whateverness. Then you have to talk that person out of playing what most people see as "the true game". And then you will maybe have a pretty crappy game while feeling bad for even asking.

I have to say I agree a lot with this as a casual player. I played a few games before the last generals handbook and that seemed like enough to get my head around. It is very daunting an seemingly time consuming with other aspects of life work, social etc. During second edition I'd play maybe 2 games a month with either my ogors or fyreslayers.

I guess I'll just wait till 4th ed and keep paintings and reading. Shame if they just kept things similar to 2ed but drastically lowered points.of battalions it would be more accessible to casual players. A

[dirkdragonslayer]

On 12/18/2022 at 11:16 AM, The Brotherhood of Necros said:

Waaa of course, I’d totally forgotten! Well I’m feeling a little better about grabbing a Skarsnik sculpt last week before he went, at least. He was one of my favourite characters, growing up. 

I really regret not getting one. The release of his DLC in Total War Warhammer is what inspired me to play Age of Sigmar. A year or two ago I tried ordering him through my FLGS, but I waited half a year before canceling the order since it wasn't coming.

[Sigmarusvult]

It seems that, with the right base size, you could stop unleash hell with the rules from the next ghb . Do you think it was intentional from the designer team ?

Not sure how I am feeling about rules that break the core rules, I have the impression that there a lot of them now and it didn’t do well  for the game in the previous edition.

[MitGas]

What I think makes the situation is worse is that people want to use the comp rules as it‘s the „definite/most balanced“ version of the ruleset… despite not wanting overly complex rules! It‘s a bit of a contradiction in itself but it is what is is…

I don‘t find the rules that difficult but I think GW needs to explain them a hell of a lot better. You can‘t imagine how many things I had to explain to people in my group and that‘s before the latest additions… Personally I struggled quite a bit with Killteam‘s rules at first too. I mean there‘s a high probability I‘m an idiot but still, I think sometimes better wording would defuse this situation a lot. 
 

edit: that said, I don‘t see the benefit of more complex rules in most use cases. Sure, you can‘t create a second chess but people that play more tt wargame systems usually tell me the other systems habe better rules. I guess they‘re right, although I can‘t say for sure as I only wanna collect GW stuff…

Edited December 22, 2022 by MitGas

[KingBrodd]

[Flippy]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

Gameplay seems a bit complicated too with a lot of memory checks and some gotcha-moments: Battle traits, subfactions, core battallions (3 sources), spell/prayers buff, aura buff, command buff/tricks, hero actions, monstruos rampage, warscroll ability, side-abilities (galletian stuff), keywords/roles changes... and the basic and most important ones: Stats and movement 

I miss them, my 4+ to hit attacks with -1 rend... /sadface

I would start by removing from the standard battlepack:

- stuff that complicates list-building: battalions

- stuff that usually gets forgotten during the game: battalions, monstrous rampages, heroic actions

- stuff that significantly slows the game down: battle tactics, grand strategies

Then we can see if any additional trim is required.

[Mutton]

Personally, I'd remove battalions from the game entirely. It's one of those list building things that isn't fun, wastes time, and confuses new players to no end. It's extra work for little-to-no gain.

Roll off to determine who goes first like in the core rules. This whole drop system is and has always been stupid. Also, let everyone have 2 artifacts because it's fun.

[Landohammer]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

There are a lot very one-sighted assumptions in your comment (no offense intended).

If you break it down, for a (nowadays) casual player as me it goes like this:
Army construction:
- Add Units, choose the General choose artefacts and commant traits. The latter two I have to look up, since I won't have them memorized due to how often I play
- Choosing the battalion is already annoying since I just want to get going and I don't want to read up (again) what each battalion does
- Now back to going over the Warscrolls I added to somewhat remember what they do (in order to play tactical)
- This should be all there is to it now one would assume. Wrong.
- Now I have to go back and look up which battalions are actually the ones useable and what they do.
- Finsihed? Far from it: Now get back to the season rules and try to learn those with all their needlessly complicated formulated rules 
- Then have a look at the new Battleplans
- Try to figure out if Grondspine Incarnates are a thing
- Go back and check if your army makes sense with the new Battlepack
- Finished? Far from it! Go back and check Battle Tactics
- Finally I can get to the Table! (forgetting 3/4 of all the rules and loosing due to it - or due to a random Hell Pit abomination dealing 64 mortal wounds, well, great game!)

---> I usually quit at step 4. I want to play a game, not repeat my master's thesis.

 

"I also think alot of people forget, matched play is only one way of playing AoS. If you don't want to use the new GHB - don't. Try narrative or open play. "
Cute if it was that easy. First you have to find someone who is still playing Age of Overloaded Whateverness. Then you have to talk that person out of playing what most people see as "the true game". And then you will maybe have a pretty crappy game while feeling bad for even asking.

The issue with AoS is that it needs another way to play: Tounament Play = You get to use all those fancy and completely uneeded new Rules | Matched Play = Pickup Games, no Season Rules | Narrative Games = Campaigns, historical battles and all the like
Currently everyone is getting shoehorned into tournament play whether they like it or not. (Most people don't play narrative games when it comes to pickup games).

"I'm hoping the book drops soon, I have a event at the end of January and I'll love to try the new rules for it. "
I am hoping it will be the last of its kind. GW should really focus on narrative play instead of all that tournament nonsense.

How often are you playing? Your opinion is actually shared by a lot of folks on this forum and it fascinates me because its so different from my experience as a player. 

The GHB appeals to the consistent player. My meta (including myself) consists of 20-30 people that play weekly, and attend 1-2 tournaments a month. We consider ourselves pretty casual, as there are guys (mainly GT players) that play ALOT more than us.

After 6 months, pretty much everyone in my network are pretty much ready for a refresh. Because a consistent player is going to have 30+ games under those roles. The GT "pros" even more so.

I personally always anticipate the new GHB quite a bit. And so does the store managers in my area because of the excitement for events (and revenue) it generates.

If you are a narrative/open/SUPER casual player, the GHB doesn't hurt you. You can play the vanilla battleplan from the core rules, a favorite plan from an old GHB, or even just makeup your own. However the GHB updates are fundamentally import to my player network, because its always serves as a kind of revival to my player base. 

[JackStreicher]

16 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

How often are you playing? Your opinion is actually shared by a lot of folks on this forum and it fascinates me because its so different from my experience as a player. 

The GHB appeals to the consistent player. My meta (including myself) consists of 20-30 people that play weekly, and attend 1-2 tournaments a month. We consider ourselves pretty casual, as there are guys (mainly GT players) that play ALOT more than us.

Since I moved to a new city during covid I’ll not talk about the time before that.
Currently: In good months 3 games, on average 1.5, lately 0. It‘d be possible to have up to 8 games a month (club opens twice a week), however most players play 40k or other systems. I don’t attend AoS tournaments anymore (too many toxic neckbeards around here and the overall experience is a waste of time and money to me - and let’s not talk about the potent smell of Nurgle hanging in the air).

With that amount of playing you and your mates should be considered as average tournament players. Those guys training for GT‘s are hardcore Tournament players.

Edited December 22, 2022 by JackStreicher

[Gitzdee]

Wish they did a casuals/ open play book too or at least an update to those game modes that seems to get forgotten every edition. More fun battleplans and ideas to set up tables for single games and not only campaigns would.be nice to have.

[Jetlife]

19 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

Wish they did a casuals/ open play book too or at least an update to those game modes that seems to get forgotten every edition. More fun battleplans and ideas to set up tables for single games and not only campaigns would.be nice to have.

I think that is the issue. Everyone feels they have to play matched play games and their current rules because there isn't much support for the other ways to play. So for the player who plays once a month, 6 month rule changes seem frequent. Those who play weekly are usually ready for a new twist. 

 

Open play is too... well frankly, open. I understand the concept of "just using' the core book rules but it might be harder to find people who will play that way. I personally like the GHB's because it forces the meta and lists to change, but it also can create rules bloat. 

I think the solution lies within a supplement that organizes the rules in other ways then "matched play" All ways to play should use points but change open play to simple play. With just the basic rules. Could even name them. Battle for simpler games and a War for the current tournament standard.  

[Sigmarusvult]

9 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

Wish they did a casuals/ open play book too or at least an update to those game modes that seems to get forgotten every edition. More fun battleplans and ideas to set up tables for single games and not only campaigns would.be nice to have.

 Thondia has some good battleplans without objective to cap nor battle-tactics, the only negative is that some of them involve to play an incarnate of Ghur but my buddy and I used man-crushers instead and it was a lot of fun.

I think, at this stage, it is down to us to make the game better for the people who don't necessary have the time to commit to tournaments or play often. 

I had a game recently  where we didn't use bataillon nor battle tactics, we just picked a battle plan from the ghb with a single objective in the middle which then split in two from turn 3. We had a great time and the game didn't feel unbalance, we actually enjoyed it more than a "normal game" because we took the time to savor the rules and  playstyles of our armies instead of racing for the points.