The Rumour Thread

[Grungnisson]

20 hours ago, TechnoVampire said:

It feels like this is a logical progression on many levels, and popular for players, however GW will probably avoid this as long as possible, because they are terrified of having rules pirated and they love selling printed rules on dead trees. Maybe if the community increases pressure GW might eventually start to listen. 

Even in the UK there are areas where staying consistently online is an issue. And GW operates in many countries around the world, where access to technology is varied and inconsistent. Unlike the old one, the new AoS app won't even open if you're not online.

If I were to chose, whether I can play with an outdated book in my hand, or not being able to play at all, I know what I'd chose.

While not going full digital may inconvenience a proportion of the player base, ditching the books would permanently exclude a significant number of players worldwide.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 hour ago, woolf said:

They also have a ton of rend so from that point of view adds to point that normal armour is becoming less valuable. Rend 3 wound is close to MW in a lot of cases after all..

I still prefer the shift towards high rend and away from mortals, particularly "on hit" mortals since they also skip the wound roll. Plus you can at least counter-stack saves against high rend, at the very least All-Out Defense.

Overall, I think it is right that there has been a decrease in mortal wounds in recent books. At least, "for free" mortals that don't rely on magic or other similar abilities that have a dice roll attached. It seems to me that in newer books mortals are being used for impact hits on the charge and damage reflection abilities more than to increase the damage of hammer units.

[TechnoVampire]

1 hour ago, Grungnisson said:

Even in the UK there are areas where staying consistently online is an issue. And GW operates in many countries around the world, where access to technology is varied and inconsistent. Unlike the old one, the new AoS app won't even open if you're not online.

If I were to chose, whether I can play with an outdated book in my hand, or not being able to play at all, I know what I'd chose.

While not going full digital may inconvenience a proportion of the player base, ditching the books would permanently exclude a significant number of players worldwide.

That’s fair, but I’m not suggesting a ban on books or printed material. Like many people I’d like an option for digital rules that doesn’t require purchasing a book that may be out of date within a few weeks after FAQ’s are released. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. The app could be available offline, or there could be an option to print rules. One option could be an online PDF people can purchase is updated, and you can print, or books could simply exist alongside a cheaper option for digital rules… There are many alternative solutions that don’t require exclusively using expensive disposable books. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by TechnoVampire
Grammar

[EntMan]

37 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

Unlike the old one, the new AoS app won't even open if you're not online.

I just now turned off WiFi and mobile data and turned on aeroplane mode, and the current AoS app still worked.

[Grungnisson]

13 minutes ago, EntMan said:

I just now turned off WiFi and mobile data and turned on aeroplane mode, and the current AoS app still worked.

Before I typed it in, I did the same on my tablet. The app opened on a sign in page, without giving me an option to access any content. When I turned the WiFi back on, it logged me in automatically.

While I appreciate that your experience (for whatever reason) might be different, believe me, I'm not talking out of my backside. I tried it on a tablet, which hasn't got mobile data connectivity, WiFi only.

[Chikout]

35 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

Before I typed it in, I did the same on my tablet. The app opened on a sign in page, without giving me an option to access any content. When I turned the WiFi back on, it logged me in automatically.

While I appreciate that your experience (for whatever reason) might be different, believe me, I'm not talking out of my backside. I tried it on a tablet, which hasn't got mobile data connectivity, WiFi only.

I think it might need a daily log in or something. I tried logging in with the internet off. It didn't work. I turned the internet on and it immediately worked. I then turned the internet off again closed the app and opened it again. It worked fine. I tried it a couple of times on my phone and my iPad with the same results. 

[Vasshpit]

I think the inconsistency of MW, damage and rend across the board is the issue. Like you're telling me bats have -1 rend (new vyrkos foot hero) but a 7' tall swamp orruk with a 10 foot spear doesn't?

And the damage creep is a thing as well. What's the straight average damage table, +1 attack, 4 to hit and wound, 0 rend, 1 damage? This should be baseline and not frowned upon when you see it. It shouldn't be great OR bad just average and seen as standard. When everything is getting -1 rend and 2+ dam of course the "average" is going to look bad. Then you apply a slow damage creep for new models and of course you're going to run into problems. 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Vasshpit

[Gareth 🍄]

1 hour ago, TechnoVampire said:

That’s fair, but I’m not suggesting a ban on books or printed material. Like many people I’d like an option for digital rules that doesn’t require purchasing a book that may be out of date within a few weeks after FAQ’s are released. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. The app could be available offline, or there could be an option to print rules. One option could be an online PDF people can purchase is updated, and you can print, or books could simply exist alongside a cheaper option for digital rules… There are many alternative solutions that don’t require exclusively using expensive disposable books. 

Yeah they should at very least return to selling digital copies for people who don't want to buy the physical books, I don't know why they stopped selling them digitally. Maybe didn't want to give Google and Apple a cut or something?

Edited May 4, 2023 by Gareth 🍄

[EntMan]

1 hour ago, Grungnisson said:

Before I typed it in, I did the same on my tablet. The app opened on a sign in page, without giving me an option to access any content. When I turned the WiFi back on, it logged me in automatically.

While I appreciate that your experience (for whatever reason) might be different, believe me, I'm not talking out of my backside. I tried it on a tablet, which hasn't got mobile data connectivity, WiFi only.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I thought you were misleading or anything. I wondered if it might be different on different devices or versions of the app. Maybe it needs the daily log in as mentioned? I think I'd used the app earlier today.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

32 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

What's the straight average damage table, +1 attack, 4 to hit and wound, 0 rend, 1 damage? This should be baseline and not frowned upon when you see it.

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but that offensive stat line should absolutely not be standard. That's the stat line of a unit that struggles to beat even save '-' units over the course of a whole game. It's the stat line of a unit that provides no appreciable offensive presence at all.

Just because all of those stat have some claim of being the "base line", it really does not mean that they make sense in the context of the rest of the mechanics of the game when brought together as one profile.

[Grungnisson]

9 minutes ago, EntMan said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I thought you were misleading or anything. I wondered if it might be different on different devices or versions of the app. Maybe it needs the daily log in as mentioned? I think I'd used the app earlier today.

None taken.

Bottom line, I still believe GW (at least at this point) is still trying to make sure they can continue to have their reach as far as possible, with the added bonus of making money on those books. 

And speaking for myself, the old ****** that I am, I'm OK with that. They're still a reference you can always reliably go back to. Sure, people have different approaches but if you'd like to know how some rules or warscrolls evolved from book to book, currently there's no other way of doing it.

Although, I guess, it could be a nice idea for GW to create an archive within the WH+ perhaps, where all the older battletomes would get thrown in, once they're invalidated. Bit like the WD vault. But that's a different story altogether.

[Vasshpit]

@Neil Arthur Hotep You'd definitely have to run all the numbers to get a "standard " but it was more of an example. 

However that does mean that the overall mechanics of the game are not as tight as could be. Of course with buffs, subfactions, allegiance abilities, etc that "standard" should be able to do some work. 

And in theory shouldn't "standard" be able to carry itself? Not overpower or underpowered but at least have legs?

Edit: Not asking for straight chess here but some tighter consistency couldn't hurt. 

The new deathrattle skelly profile is a great example of this imo. Base isn't anything special BUT when those warscroll mechanics start coming into play they become something. 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Vasshpit

[TechnoVampire]

1 hour ago, Grungnisson said:

None taken.

Bottom line, I still believe GW (at least at this point) is still trying to make sure they can continue to have their reach as far as possible, with the added bonus of making money on those books. 

And speaking for myself, the old ****** that I am, I'm OK with that. They're still a reference you can always reliably go back to. Sure, people have different approaches but if you'd like to know how some rules or warscrolls evolved from book to book, currently there's no other way of doing it.

Although, I guess, it could be a nice idea for GW to create an archive within the WH+ perhaps, where all the older battletomes would get thrown in, once they're invalidated. Bit like the WD vault. But that's a different story altogether.

I’d love to agree with you on this point, but if making rules accessible was at the top of GW’s priority pile they’d provide free rules online in the same way they do with war-scrolls, and still have a way of monetising them through printed books (for people that like those) and a paid app that conveniently updates the rules and let’s you build lists with them (add in any other app based bonus’s that would encourage people to pay for it)… please don’t take that as me trying to undermine what you are saying, I’m just making the point that GW could easily provide rules to a much wider audience while still make money from them if they wished to do so. It seems clear to me that book only rules is a (failed) attempt to prevent people from accessing them for free and as they see it losing any potential profit.

Ironically GW might even attract more players (and money) if the rules were more readily accessible. 
 

 

[Grungnisson]

20 minutes ago, TechnoVampire said:

 

Ironically GW might even attract more players (and money) if the rules were more readily accessible. 
 

I think I'm just trying to boil it all down to: everyone, who can always be online, can also buy a book. Not everyone, who can buy a book can also always be online. 

And also, I'm not saying this definitely is how they approach it, but I could definitely see as a reason behind sticking to paper.

Then again, it's GW, nothing's ever logical with them. 

[CommissarRotke]

3 hours ago, Chikout said:

I think it might need a daily log in or something. I tried logging in with the internet off. It didn't work. I turned the internet on and it immediately worked. I then turned the internet off again closed the app and opened it again. It worked fine. I tried it a couple of times on my phone and my iPad with the same results. 

it probably is; this is an unfortunate reality to all the always-online and account-bound subs/purchases that we have now

 

[Beliman]

8 hours ago, Vasshpit said:

I think the inconsistency of MW, damage and rend across the board is the issue.

I agree, the whole game needs to be easier to understand:
E.g: If chariots can do mortal wounds on a charge, give mortal wounds to all chariots. Then, you can tweak the numbers of mortal wounds to make better chariots.

Imo, there is something strange in the AoS design, because it doesn't follow any other game's logic.. What I'm trying to say, is that AoS has good and bad attack profiles:

• Good profiles with Rend can threat profiles with high save.
• Bad profiles can (or should) only threat units with bad saves, and thanks to the "crit-mechanic" (6s always hit/wound), a good volume of this bad profiles can still threat some high quality saves.
• And then we have Mortal Wounds, that are good for anyone.

This mechanics could be fine if there is a direct relation with the unit's wound characteristic and the number of Attacks. Low wound models with high quality saves should be the target of high rend (or mw), but that's the main problem because AoS delivers mortal wounds with rolls to hit (so, a good ammount of attacks, usually given by low quality profiles, aka, exactly the units that shouldn't try to kill high quality saves), or direct attacks (magic, AoEs, etc...).

In other words, you look for a Damage Output, doesn't matter if it comes from MW or bad quality profiles, if you average a good damage, you are good to go. That's why ranged attacks with mw on 6s are that good, and improving Save (aka save-stacking), return models on a roll (rally), Ward saves,etc.. makes all this things a bit odd to comprehend.

If we switch to Conquest (but I can talk about Asoiaf and Malifaux too, and maybe Legion in a few weeks), I can see the focus of each profile:

• Good profiles are stable damage that the enemy will need to roll dice to defend.
• Number of attacks can make stable dmg output even if their quality is bad, but improve if they have good profiles, so expect some defense rolls or even a big punch depending on the unit.
• Cleave (aka, Rend) is to reduce defense: Cleave 1 is really good, Cleave 2 is crazy and Cleave 3 is really hard to see and it will go through armor.

That's all, with a few abilities/keywords/USR, you can have an infinite amount of variations with just this mechanics. You can throw some fiend hunter (reroll attacks vs monsters), head-taker (reroll attacks vs heroes), support (more attacks if the unit has more ranks), hardened (reduce incoming Rend), shield (+1 save), etc... and BOOM, a lot of crazy stuff to manage on the table, but doesn't matter because it's still easier to understand the logic behind the game. Btw, take in mind that Conquest only has one roll for attack and one for defense (like Asoiaf and Malifaux) with fixe'd success (like AoS and a lot of other games).

Sorry for the wall of text!

Edited May 4, 2023 by Beliman
Grammar

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

5 hours ago, Vasshpit said:

I think the inconsistency of MW, damage and rend across the board is the issue. Like you're telling me bats have -1 rend (new vyrkos foot hero) but a 7' tall swamp orruk with a 10 foot spear doesn't?

And the damage creep is a thing as well. What's the straight average damage table, +1 attack, 4 to hit and wound, 0 rend, 1 damage? This should be baseline and not frowned upon when you see it. It shouldn't be great OR bad just average and seen as standard. When everything is getting -1 rend and 2+ dam of course the "average" is going to look bad. Then you apply a slow damage creep for new models and of course you're going to run into problems.

Coming out of 40K 9e, this here summarises so many of the problems with that edition. Trust me folks, you do not want -1 Rend and 2+ damage to feel like an "average" stat line.

Say what you will about "mortals on 6s," at least it's an effect that's the result of a single, clear special rule with a "critical hit!" vibe that speeds up the pacing, and not the result of multiple different effects and characteristics stacking up over time. GW has shown that they are far quicker to to identify and tweak the former than the latter.

Edited May 4, 2023 by acr0ssth3p0nd

[RyantheFett]

2 minutes ago, Beliman said:

If we switch to Conquest (but I can talk about Asoiaf and Malifaux too, and maybe Legion in a few weeks), I can see what each profile wants to "kill":

• Good profiles are stable damage that the enemy will need to roll dice to defend.
• Number of attacks can make stable output even if their quality of attacks is bad, so expect some rolls to defend too.
• Cleave (aka, Rend) is to reduce defense: Cleave 1 is really good, Cleave 2 is crazy and Cleave 3 is really hard to see and it will go through armor.

 

If we are talking about Star Wars Legion then I would say it suffers from the same issue as AoS (at least before I quit). A large part of the system is based of off getting crits which bypass armor, cover, and most other defenses. So while some weapons you want to pick targets a lot of the time it becomes of game of rerolls, lots of dice, and luck. Even the most tanky units often get one shot off the table.

I like the 40k version weapons where the strength of the weapon really decides what you need to attack. Think that could work in the next version of Sigmar......... or at least better then what they are doing now?

[Beliman]

@RyantheFett Sad to hear that. I have a demo in TTS in a few weeks, at least is from one of my  university's friends, so it will be fun even I don't like the game

Edited May 4, 2023 by Beliman

[Superninja]

The defensive stats have improved and you can stack save bonuses to offset rend. Or you just ignore rend or have a great ward save. OR all of the of it.  This has caused the the need for offensive stats to improve.  Standard back and forth between offense and defense. Now maybe offense is ahead. I could be wrong.

[Beliman]

@Superninja

My commentary was more about the types of damage than damage vs defense.

Specialized damage  vs Damage output

[Vasshpit]

4 hours ago, Beliman said:

E.g: If chariots can do mortal wounds on a charge, give mortal wounds to all chariots. Then, you can tweak the numbers of mortal wounds to make better chariots.

Great example. 

4 hours ago, Beliman said:

That's all, with a few abilities/keywords/USR, you can have an infinite amount of variations with just this mechanics. You can throw some fiend hunter (reroll attacks vs monsters), head-taker (reroll attacks vs heroes), support (more attacks if the unit has more ranks), hardened (reduce incoming Rend), shield (+1 save), etc... and BOOM, a lot of crazy stuff to manage on the table, but doesn't matter because it's still easier to understand the logic behind the game.

Definitely the direction I'd like to see. 

[Nezzhil]

What if... the Winter book is Stormcast, the Febraury/March is FeC and the next Starter is not a Stormcast vs something?

[JackStreicher]

AoS does not use common logic for its rules. All of the warscrolls get rules for game design purposes:

- Consistent Damage: Mortal Wounds

- Hammer: At least one source of Morgal wounds

The best example of inconsistencies due to game design (other words: To make the unit perform as the rules writer sees fit, not to make the unit perform on some common sense or logical level) are lances: Wildly different stats. Some add a bonus for charging, others don’t, and others again add a different bonus altogether.

 

I miss universal special rules. They added common sense and would free up space on Warscrolls for thematic rules.

 

[Malakithe]

6 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

I miss universal special rules. They added common sense and would free up space on Warscrolls for thematic rules.

Could be one of the many reasons 40k is getting a reset in many ways