The Rumour Thread

[JackStreicher]

3 hours ago, Vasshpit said:

@acr0ssth3p0nd

I've heard nothing but great things about it's system but never played myself. I wonder how hard it would be to bring those rules over to AoS as a fan made rules project. 

Thanks  

The systems ate too different I am afraid.

for example you roll off the see who won combat, the winner gets to strike. If you rolled equally the weapon skill stat decides. Usually one wounds on a 4 or 5 so lethality is way less than in AoS.

[Flippy]

16 hours ago, Landohammer said:

I mean relatively, AOS is currently the most simple form of traditional Warhammer available. Its a fraction of the complexity of old fantasy and is dwarfed by modern 40K and Horus Heresy in terms of rules complexity. 

The idea that any form of AOS is too complicated seems like a pretty crazy argument too me. What are you comparing it too? 

To WFB. The old fantasy had many versions, but the one I've played was easier than current AoS. The reasons for this will very much echo the Beliman's remarks on HH and acr0ssth3p0nd's comments regarding game design. Once you've learned the basic rules of WFB, the actual play was easier and focused mostly on positioning. Points were awarded for killing and the units' abilities and stats generally stayed the same throughout the game; the game was not based on buffing / debuffing dynamic and aura effects, which are prevalent in AoS. In WFB, stat modifiers were passive (e.g. two-handed weapon = +2 strength and strike-last effect) and there was no need to constantly track changing modifiers. Even the magic was more focused on direct and immediate effects (with a standard 2D6 S4 hits spell available in almost every lore).

AoS, on the other hand, is practically impossible to play without some sort of markers - this is not sophistication but a memory-check. If you ever watch Season of War battle reports, it becomes clear that even top competitive players regularly forget this or that modifier or ability. Not a sign of a good design, I'm afraid.

At the same time, the AoS construction allows to peel off certain layers and still have a perfectly playable game. You can take away battalions and just allow 1 enhancement for every 500 points - and the game will be fine; you lose some sophistication in listbuilding, but you also don't have to remember that this particular unit can re-roll charge once per game. That would be perfectly acceptable for more casual players.

Just to be very clear - I don't want GW to simplify the whole game. I would just like to see the official casual battlepack with regular updates from GW that would appeal to players looking for a slightly different experience. I am such a player myself - while I can deal just fine with pretty much any ruleset, I'm not looking for any hobby-time experience that resembles my job (I'm a tax attorney).

Edited December 23, 2022 by Flippy

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

13 minutes ago, Flippy said:

To WFB. The old fantasy had many versions, but the one I've played was easier than current AoS. The reasons for this will very much echo the Beliman's remarks on HH and acr0ssth3p0nd's comments regarding game design. Once you've learned the basic rules of WFB, the actual play was easier and focused mostly on positioning. Points were awarded for killing and the units' abilities and stats generally stayed the same throughout the game; the game was not based on buffing / debuffing dynamic and aura effects, which are prevalent in AoS. In WFB, stat modifiers were passive (e.g. two-handed weapon = +2 strength and strike-last effect) and there was no need to constantly track changing modifiers. Even the magic was more focused on direct and immediate effects (with a standard 2D6 S4 hits spell available in almost every lore).

AoS, on the other hand, is practically impossible to play without some sort of markers - this is not sophistication but a memory-check. If you ever watch Season of War battle reports, it becomes clear that even top competitive players regularly forget this or that modifier or ability. Not a sign of a good design, I'm afraid.

At the same time, the AoS construction allows to peel of certain game layers and still have a perfectly playable game. You can take away battalions and just allow 1 enhancement for every 500 points - and the game will be fine; you lose some sophistication in listbuilding, but you also don't have to remember that this particular unit can re-roll charge once per game. That would be perfectly acceptable for more casual players.

Just to be very clear - I don't want GW to simplify the whole game. I would just like to see the official casual battlepack with regular updates from GW that would appeal to players looking for a slightly different experience. I am such a player myself - while I can deal just fine with pretty much any ruleset, I'm not looking for any hobby-time experience that resembles my job (I'm a tax attorney).

Good post. I think AoS would benefit a lot from an optional simple rule set. However, I think the current state of AoS does not necessarily have a problem with the game being complex. Rather, the problem is that the complexity that was added in 3rd edition there does not enhance the game in many places.

Warhammer fantasy and 40k have had a lot of examples of this too over the years. Like vehicle turning rules in early 40k, or the weird rules of early Steam Tanks (was it really necessary to have exactly one unit in the game that had "hull points"?). I find this kind of thing happens a lot with "exception based" design, where instead of trying to model an aspect of the game though the core mechanics, an extra mechanic gets introduced that works in a fundamentally different way.

In my opinion, a lot of the mechanics introduced in 3rd have fairly clear and valid design goals: Monstrous rampages give monsters an identity they did not have in 2nd (where being a monster was frequently just a downside) and secondaries (battle tactics and grand strategies) help counterbalance hordes vs. elites in the capture game and make the game more tactically complex (in theory). These elements might need another design pass, but I think it was not obviously wrong to introduce them.

Other mechanics, I am more critical about. Coherency is something nobody really liked from the get-go. Heroic actions kinda just feel unnecessary. When core battalions were introduced I thought they were a good way to make the old warscroll battalion system more equitable, but more recently I think they could just be removed entirely without negatively affecting the game.

The big problem with unnecessary complexity like this is the increased cognitive load. Sure, heroic actions might just be one more thing to keep in mind, which is note excessive if you are already used to everything else, but at some point many grains of sand do become a heap. At some point, it does become too much to comfortably keep everything straight. And frequently the things you have to track are micro-optimizations, which are unimportant most of the time, untill they suddenly become game deciding one game and you feel bad.

[Sigmarusvult]

59 minutes ago, Flippy said:

the game was not based on buffing / debuffing dynamic and aura effects, which are prevalent in AoS. In WFB, stat modifiers were passive (e.g. two-handed weapon = +2 strength and strike-last effect) and there was no need to constantly track changing modifiers.

It is interesting to see how modifiers have become a key features of the game to the point where tokens have become essential to keep track of them all.

 If most modifiers do buff/debuff the basic elements of the game ( +/- x to hit, wound, run, charge…) and as long as everyone can get access to them- they are then easier to balance and keep the game somehow simpler.

It also helps that the core rules limit the stacking of modifiers : Modifiers can be a nice buff or debuff tool but they don’t break the stats expected from a unit at a given point cost.

What worries me with modifiers is the fact that there are now ways to bypass the limitation of stacking to the point where it doesn’t feel like a dice game anymore but rather a « just don’t roll 1s » (looking at you dok)

[Clan's Cynic]

The issue with any 'Casual Battlepack' is a great swathe of the community would simply dismiss it as "not the real play to play AoS" in a similar vein to Open Play and Narrative Play. The GW community has a real problem with herd mentality. Even those who'd prefer to play with it simply won't because almost none else is. At that point you might as well just houserule it rather than an expect an official Games Workshop(tm) product to do it for you. 

Outside of tracking your army's progress, Path To Glory is already a more stripped down experience 'in-game' due to ignoring the GHBs and it's nowhere near as popular as Matched Play even in very casual communities. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Clan's Cynic

[KingBrodd]

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

[Skreech Verminking]

Just now, KingBrodd said:

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

New skaven model?!!??

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 minute ago, KingBrodd said:

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

Anything AoS related would be welcome at this point. Maybe something extra for Gitz or Beasts? Although I kind of think they will just get one new unit each.

My most anticipated release is Cities, so I will go with that. Maybe they could show us the actual model of one of the new units (not just renders of bits). But even then, bunch of close-ups that of parts of upcoming models for next year is probably more likely.

[Asbestress]

9 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

Something for Cities would be nice, although something for Gitz or Warcry seems more likely.

[Black_Templar_Lad]

More Gitmobs would be the best crimbo prezzy from GW.

[Neverchosen]

10 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

Oh I am really hoping for Morghur and plastic Centigors and a few plastic updates for resin heroes. I also hope that we get some of the rumoured grot releases. Then a bit of a preview for the next new army... maybe a Chaos Dwarf teaser or Malerion hint.

Of course Old World, 40k, HH and Middle Earth Strategy Game Reveals

11 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

realistic 

Oh... 😒

I guess we will see some space marines... 😢

[EntMan]

35 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

Space Dwarves Kill Team.

[Sharkbelly]

52 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

Maneaters! I mean, we can dream, right?

[Clan's Cynic]

Last year was just the CSM vs Eldar box right?

So I'm going with the next Kill Team box as well, particularly with all the Votann Rumour Engines they've put out in place of an Advent Calendar. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Clan's Cynic

[EntMan]

1 minute ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Last year was just the CSM vs Eldar box right?

So I'm going with the next Kill Team box as well.

That had the advent RE build up.. Hopefully we'll get an actual suprise this year. But King of Brodd did say realistic hopes and dreams.

If he hadn't said that I'd have said New Dinosaurs!

 

[sandlemad]

@acr0ssth3p0nd Well put, it’s such an elegant system. Easy to lean, lightweight, efficient… Tons of depth and nuance without just piling on stratagems and battle tactics and all the cruft that characterises most modern GW games, which to my mind by and large give complexity without much added depth.

I think it’s one of the best rulesets to ever come out of GW and still feel that they missed a trick by not using it as a starting point when first creating AoS.

[Ganigumo]

1 hour ago, KingBrodd said:

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

more gitmob, although to dampen my hopes a bit Its more likely to be a gitmob vs BoC battle box.

[Flippy]

1 hour ago, Clan's Cynic said:

The issue with any 'Casual Battlepack' is a great swathe of the community would simply dismiss it as "not the real play to play AoS" in a similar vein to Open Play and Narrative Play. The GW community has a real problem with herd mentality. Even those who'd prefer to play with it simply won't because almost none else is. At that point you might as well just houserule it rather than an expect an official Games Workshop(tm) product to do it for you. 

I disagree. It's just the matter of GW's support for the format. For many people, the real way to play is the way that receives attention from GW - imagine a Casual Handbook for every season with some fun battleplans, campaign ideas, new artefacts and spell lores, backed up by WH+ casual battle reports and some WD coverage for casual play nights.

For those who do not remember - there used to be a time when the tournament players were supposed to houserule (i.e. comp systems) the game, not the other way around. This was also far from perfect, but at least casual players was not expected to learn the Swedish Comp in order to pick up a game.

[Noserenda]

Names matter, i suspect if you make matched play the casual version and instead split off tournament play it would see more use, because people are weird.

As someone who spent years teaching folks to play Warhammer, its significantly harder for people to get their heads around than AoS in my experience, like, AoS has niggly nuance but movement in old warhammer had just as much and usually sucked up the majority of the course. Once that was down things went a lot more smoothly but the difficulty curve started with a cliff while you can run a basic game of AoS with a 5 minute chat.

+1 to LoTR being a great system too, super underrated by people.

[KingBrodd]

1 hour ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Last year was just the CSM vs Eldar box right?

So I'm going with the next Kill Team box as well, particularly with all the Votann Rumour Engines they've put out in place of an Advent Calendar. 

You may be spot on the money here mate!!

[DinoJon]

2 hours ago, KingBrodd said:

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

Realistic hope? We get shown a new Seraphon model or we get to see the next two tomes after BOC and Gitz. 

What I expect is the first Ark of Omens box to go alongside Book 1.

[CommissarRotke]

1 hour ago, Flippy said:

For many people, the real way to play is the way that receives attention from GW

I think this is exactly why "Matched Play" should become a casual-standard, so GW could make a more meta "Tournament Play" book for those who want to go the extra mile and/or become more serious about the game. "Casual Handbook" sounds too casual ironically enough--the entry point for tabletop games should be a smooth ruleset period; some complexity, but overall goes down easy. Then if you REALLY want to chase the meta or be gung ho about competing, you can buy into the Premium Tournament Ruleset. This ALSO leaves the door open for Narrative Play to get wacky, instead of getting the "just play that if you want to be casual" treatment!

Feels like a win-win: the core game becomes the default way to play (and less expensive to maintain as players), while offering a premium track for competitive players and/or those who want more frequent updates/refreshes on the core game.

If GW wants to market themselves as a Premium Product this split also fits seamlessly.

2 hours ago, Asbestress said:

Something for Cities would be nice, although something for Gitz or Warcry seems more likely.

I could see us getting a render of one (1) whole trooper, maybe no arms attached, but body+legs+head at least. That or part of a war machine is my guess. And I'll never say no to more Warcry 👀

[EccentricCircle]

Simple systems are good, complex systems are good so long as that compexity serves a purpose and is structured with some aim at elegance in mind. The problem with modern warhammer is that they actually made it too simple at the start of AoS and didn't leave themselves room to justify endless expansions. They've had to keep adding endess layers of extra rules to that simple core until the whole thing has become an unwieldy mess. 

What they should have done from the start was planned a better framework which they could expand as much as their corporate overlords want. The core would have been slightly more complex, but the overall cognitive load needn't be as huge as it is now with all these tacked on extra layers of situational rules.

AoS original design was great, but they've messed that up thoroughly. We'll have to see what 10e 40k looks like, and whether that strikes a better balance, as that is the shape of things to come for us too.

[Bosskelot]

I think all these posts saying a "casual" mission pack wouldn't catch on are missing that Tempest of War for 40k, widely regarded as being the "casual" mission pack compared to the GT stuff, has been a wild success and is probably the actual default way to play the game for the majority of people now.

[Ogregut]

5 hours ago, KingBrodd said:

What are everyones realistic hopes and dreams for Sundays Sneak Peek!?

I'm expecting nothing that way there is no disappointment!