The Rumour Thread

[Tonhel]

26 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I'm in favour of making the command corps UNIQUE because it allows it to stay powerful and exciting. It also fits the fluff of the unit better.

Tournament grinders who bought two sets between their release in November and now can go sell the extra models on ebay, as is custommary in their unique and beautiful culture.

 

This! It would be a shame that it is weakend because tournament players spam this unit. I find it absurd that the majority of players have their units nerfed because of a minority of players that are WAAC. So if something has to change make it unique instead of weakening the unit.

[Twisted Firaun]

Take this with all of the salt on your kitchen table, but since it’s from a GW store account I figured it’s at least somewhat accurate.

[Ejecutor]

5 hours ago, flying_dutchman said:

Valid points.  I just personally can't see 3 more books being released in the little  time we have in 3rd. It seems like 4 is extensively delayed.  (Like a lot of gw stuff the past few months.)

The last books of Broken Realms were a bit rushed, with just a month gap between them. I would expect this case to be repeated again.

[Ejecutor]

7 minutes ago, Twisted Firaun said:

Take this with all of the salt on your kitchen table, but since it’s from a GW store account I figured it’s at least somewhat accurate.

It would be weird if it is not announced with anticipation in warcom. I also hope that the big boxes are back in stock

[Grungnisson]

30 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

The last books of Broken Realms were a bit rushed, with just a month gap between them. I would expect this case to be repeated again.

Maybe it's time they start planning those narrative campaigns as something to span the whole edition, with books being released every six months, and not as a rush-to-the-finish-line effort to shoehorn into ever-shifting schedules right at the end of edition...

[Ejecutor]

4 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

Maybe it's time they start planning those narrative campaigns as something to span the whole edition, with books being released every six months, and not as a rush-to-the-finish-line effort to shoehorn into ever-shifting schedules right at the end of edition...

Agree. Also their rules would have more lifespan and the money investment is not done all during a short period of time.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

21 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

Maybe it's time they start planning those narrative campaigns as something to span the whole edition, with books being released every six months, and not as a rush-to-the-finish-line effort to shoehorn into ever-shifting schedules right at the end of edition...

I think that might have been the plan for Seasons of War before they stepped back from them.

[Flippy]

34 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

This! It would be a shame that it is weakend because tournament players spam this unit. I find it absurd that the majority of players have their units nerfed because of a minority of players that are WAAC. So if something has to change make it unique instead of weakening the unit.

I'm a long time proponent of 0-X type restrictions on units. This approach has so, so many benefits... it allows to introduce units with flavourful and powerful abilities while avoiding the risk of overuse. It usually goes very well with the faction fluff and the universal "feel" of how almost every army is supposed to look like. It enforces the use of standard units, which in turn can be made weaker (which just makes sense). Like, seriously, how can one justify multiple command corps? Nine-sharks-IDK? Blissbarb Archers spam?

[Vagard]

so I guess next week is 40k battlescroll or whatever it is called and the week after is AoS battlescroll? 

IMO the "release to add to the battlescroll" they are talking about is fec as the whole range has not be released yet? If so, we can expect FEC to be in preorder next saturday (maybe as well as DB4) if tomorrow is about dices and minis from TOW.

Edited January 26 by Vagard

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

15 minutes ago, Flippy said:

I'm a long time proponent of 0-X type restrictions on units. This approach has so, so many benefits... it allows to introduce units with flavourful and powerful abilities while avoiding the risk of overuse. It usually goes very well with the faction fluff and the universal "feel" of how almost every army is supposed to look like. It enforces the use of standard units, which in turn can be made weaker (which just makes sense). Like, seriously, how can one justify multiple command corps? Nine-sharks-IDK? Blissbarb Archers spam?

IMO, that kind of system is more at home in The Old World. I like that AoS is generally more permissive and allows for a limited amount of spam, such as in Monster Mash lists. All-mounted Beastclaw Raiders is a list that should definitely be able to exist in AoS. Because where else could it exist?

[Flippy]

16 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

IMO, that kind of system is more at home in The Old World. I like that AoS is generally more permissive and allows for a limited amount of spam, such as in Monster Mash lists. All-mounted Beastclaw Raiders is a list that should definitely be able to exist in AoS. Because where else could it exist?

In casual battlepack? Seriously, though, I can see some (just some) space for thematic-driven list compositions in the army book (such as your Beastclaw Riders), specifically if the army book is a conglomerate of sub-factions with strong themes. Other than that, the lose of wacky lists charm is a sacrifice I make gladly.   

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

37 minutes ago, Flippy said:

In casual battlepack? Seriously, though, I can see some (just some) space for thematic-driven list compositions in the army book (such as your Beastclaw Riders), specifically if the army book is a conglomerate of sub-factions with strong themes. Other than that, the lose of wacky lists charm is a sacrifice I make gladly.   

I'd have called an army composed exclusively of Gargants to be pretty 'wacky'. 

Players who compose ultra-competitive army lists are always going to be a bit tiresome. I like that Age of Sigmar can have madness like an army that's entirely Steam Tanks or whatever. 

[Starfyre]

2 hours ago, Flippy said:

I'm a long time proponent of 0-X type restrictions on units. This approach has so, so many benefits... it allows to introduce units with flavourful and powerful abilities while avoiding the risk of overuse. It usually goes very well with the faction fluff and the universal "feel" of how almost every army is supposed to look like. It enforces the use of standard units, which in turn can be made weaker (which just makes sense). Like, seriously, how can one justify multiple command corps? Nine-sharks-IDK? Blissbarb Archers spam?

Pretty easily justified.

The type restrictions obviously don’t exist because they want people to buy whatever models they want and build interesting collections. 

I don’t think it’s outside the realms of possibility that an army might include two command corps. Blissbarbs are basic soldiers so that’s fine. I’m finishing up 40 bloodletters, what’s the difference. If it was WHFB, a horde of archers would be perfectly acceptable.

All sharks is just cool! Like a vehicle detachment. I think that’s fine. Bit dull looking maybe on the tabletop, but narratively a shark-cavalry corps sounds plausible. 

Spamming mono-pose vexillors and knight-judicants is where I struggle… 

[Flippy]

16 minutes ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

I'd have called an army composed exclusively of Gargants to be pretty 'wacky'. 

So would I and I'm not a fan. But it is what it is.

17 minutes ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

Players who compose ultra-competitive army lists are always going to be a bit tiresome. I like that Age of Sigmar can have madness like an army that's entirely Steam Tanks or whatever. 

I've noticed that this is a common sentiment here, which I do not share. This ain't Panzer General, and the Steam Tank (and the likes of it) is like a salt - fine in a pinch only, to add some flavour. 

[Ejecutor]

2 minutes ago, Flippy said:

So would I and I'm not a fan. But it is what it is.

I've noticed that this is a common sentiment here, which I do not share. This ain't Panzer General, and the Steam Tank (and the likes of it) is like a salt - fine in a pinch only, to add some flavour. 

Wait a few years for the Cog Forts only army.

Edited January 26 by Ejecutor

[Flippy]

5 minutes ago, Starfyre said:

Pretty easily justified.

The type restrictions obviously don’t exist because they want people to buy whatever models they want and build interesting collections. 

Yes, I agree. This is the only justification and it is also obviously a purely business-driven one.

6 minutes ago, Starfyre said:

I don’t think it’s outside the realms of possibility that an army might include two command corps. Blissbarbs are basic soldiers so that’s fine. I’m finishing up 40 bloodletters, what’s the difference. If it was WHFB, a horde of archers would be perfectly acceptable.

All sharks is just cool! Like a vehicle detachment. I think that’s fine. Bit dull looking maybe on the tabletop, but narratively a shark-cavalry corps sounds plausible. 

Command corps 0-1.

Blissbarb Archers 0-2 base size units for each 1000 pts. This is already generous.

All sharks... 🙄 Sharks 0-2 for each 1000 pts. Maybe more for Fuethan sub-faction.

[Jagged Red Lines]

2 hours ago, Grungnisson said:

Maybe it's time they start planning those narrative campaigns as something to span the whole edition, with books being released every six months, and not as a rush-to-the-finish-line effort to shoehorn into ever-shifting schedules right at the end of edition...

Hard disagree, I think it's awesome that they've released every battletome and still have more than half a year before the next edition. That's an amazing feat, and something we should be grateful for.

There's nothing worse than having a new battletome and for it to be invalidated a month later when the game changes, like what happened in 40k.

At least with these dawnbringer books, they can fill in the remaining time until the next edition with model support and optional narrative rules for those who are interested. 

Crowding the release schedule throughout the edition will lead to delays in battletomes, and that would be an extremely bad thing for those factions that get pushed back.

[Flippy]

12 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

Wait a few years for the Cog Forts only army.

To be very clear - I don't have any personal problem with this. Maybe I would even play against such "army"... once, and then I would just (very) politely refuse a game, as such lists usually make for a dull one. From the moment I started AoS people point out how the Gargants are always a DPS check, which kind of proves my point. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

9 minutes ago, Flippy said:

Yes, I agree. This is the only justification and it is also obviously a purely business-driven one.

Come on now. There are a lot of non-business reasons to be in favour of non-restrictive list building. I am saying this as someone who builds pretty much only combined arms lists.

[Gitzdee]

3 minutes ago, Flippy said:

To be very clear - I don't have any personal problem with this. Maybe I would even play against such "army"... once, and then I would just (very) politely refuse a game, as such lists usually make for a dull one. From the moment I started AoS people point out how the Gargants are always a DPS check, which kind of proves my point. 

I think its flavourfull for Gargants to be dps checks. Would be weird if they get slain by everything. I thought it was a complaint by many that rules dont represent the models well. But i think Gargants are some of the few models that actually feel different.

[Jagged Red Lines]

I love a skew list. It's what makes AoS a wild and exciting game. There are bad match ups, but I feel like every faction is mostly balanced. 

If you keep losing, the fault isn't with "other people being mean." It's because you failed primarily as a player - in which case you need more practice with your army.

Look at the winner of Worlds. He took Lumineth, which has a sub-50% win rate and beat all the meta lists and all the top players in the world with a mostly combined arms list. 

(Edit - he also had something like 500 games over the course of a year with his list iirc, which underlines the importance of practice. See also the 10,000 hour rule from Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers)

Edited January 26 by Jagged Red Lines

[RetconnedLegion]

37 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Come on now. There are a lot of non-business reasons to be in favour of non-restrictive list building. I am saying this as someone who builds pretty much only combined arms lists.

Agreed. I would hate to see AoS go down the 40K route, where catering to the competitive scene has annihilated fun/narrative list building. 

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

51 minutes ago, Flippy said:

Blissbarb Archers 0-2 base size units for each 1000 pts. This is already generous.

In my book, anyone who has painted up multiple units of Blissbarb Archers is perfectly entitled to use as many of them as they desire, because the damn things are fiddly as hell to paint! 

Plus there's no justification, from a background point of view, to limit the number of Blissbarbs; they're meant to be the lowest rank of Sybarite, not particularly experienced in battle, and largely used as arrow fodder. 

[Ejecutor]

C'mon Dawnbringers short! We are waiting for you

What do you expect from today's short? I think it is time to see something about the Aqshyan side of the story. It is true that Ushoran is coming, but the last two were too focused on Ghyran and himself. It is time to move to Zenestra.

[Lavieth]

1 hour ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

If you keep losing, the fault isn't with "other people being mean." It's because you failed primarily as a player - in which case you need more practice with your army.

Perhaps, and I could be wrong, but could it be that those kinds of skewed list might just not be fun to play against, especially in a casual game? I know from experience that I do not enjoy playing them, regardless of the result. As an opponent I don't find they make the game more engaging when playing against a list that leans so heavily into some janky mechanic. It's got nothing to do with my skill level as a player. 

This rhetoric about how someone must not be be good enough because their opponent is mean with "X" list really does need to be put to rest. Personally, I've stopped playing games with people like that because, to me, they are missing the point of Warhammer, in my opinion. It is a 2 person game and we as opponents are engaged in a social contract of sorts to make the experience fun for both people. Far too many warhammer players have adopted a MTG mental attitude about a game is only fun if you win at all costs and by any means necessary. 

By remembering that as an opponent you are responsible for half of the enjoyment level of the game it improves the entire experience. This requires the social intelligence to know what kind of game your opponent likes to play and working with them. Some people may get more enjoyment playing the game with a story in mind for their army and build into that restriction that makes it "less competitive" but it doesn't mean they are bad or less skilled players. Just that they have different motivations for playing.