Jump to content

The Rumour Thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, Cdance93 said:

Come on, what do we think? An article with an example warscroll would be excellent …

 

I think it will be a zoom in on the rules to build up what has changed and we will see an example warscroll after this (similar to what they did with 40K). I'm refreshing the community site a lot at moment as I can't wait! :D

5 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

So I know an unsupported game technically can be played in perpetuity, but for all practical purposes unsupported wargames are effectively dead within a year. 

Off topic - I agree with that but it also depends on how it is supported. For example, I've rediscovered Warmaster and off to a tournament in May (borrowing a mates army). It has quite a good community and is well supported with regular reviews and events. So if it has a good community supporting it, then it's going to be okay. But also to add, even if the company still supports the game, if nobody is playing it, it doesn't survive! This is why GW games are so popular due to lots of people playing them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cdance93 said:

Come on, what do we think? An article with an example warscroll would be excellent …

Regarding how few new information they provide in their articles until now (One full article to announce that double turn will be more balanced, as they already told us in the preview video) I don't think we will get such an information yet. Maybe mid may around the box reveal or a bit before but I don't see it in april. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I think it will be a zoom in on the rules to build up what has changed and we will see an example warscroll after this (similar to what they did with 40K). I'm refreshing the community site a lot at moment as I can't wait! :D

Off topic - I agree with that but it also depends on how it is supported. For example, I've rediscovered Warmaster and off to a tournament in May (borrowing a mates army). It has quite a good community and is well supported with regular reviews and events. So if it has a good community supporting it, then it's going to be okay. But also to add, even if the company still supports the game, if nobody is playing it, it doesn't survive! This is why GW games are so popular due to lots of people playing them.

Yea I'm sure there are pockets that can and will exist indefinitely. But those are relatively sparce and its really luck of the draw on if you are in driveable distance. I'm in the US so if a pocket doesn't exist in my state then i'm driving 7+ hours for an event which is challenging lol.

To me, the joy of a wargame comes from weekly local pickup games and monthly RTTs with fresh opponents. Without that constant community pool I personally struggle to enjoy it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Army Building changes in 4.0. Some pretty big changes, so worth giving the article a read.

Summary:

  • Every army now comprises of 1+ Regiments.
  • Regiments are led by a Hero, who can take up to 3 non-Hero Units (4 if the Hero is a General).
  • Heroes have a list of what units can be in their Regiment (EG Alarith Stonemage can take ALARITH units and Vanari Auralan Wardens).
  • Unique faction leaders can usually include any unit from their army.
  • Some Heroes allow you to take additional Heroes in the Regiment ontop of that (EG Mighty Lord of Khorne can take GORECHOSEN Heroes)
  • Units in a Regiment are deployed as a single drop.
  • Most non-unique units can be reinforced "with more than one model" but double-reinforcing is gone.
  • No limit on the number of units you can reinforce.
  • Other 3.0 restrictions are gone.
  • Battlefield Roles (EG Battleline, Behemoth) are gone.
  • Auxiliary Units are units outside of a Regiment
  • No limit on Auxiliaries, but they're each a single drop
  • Player with the least Auxiliaries gets an extra Command Point
  • Command Points are a "scarce resource in this edition."
  • Sub-Factions are called Battle Formations
  • Battle Formations focus on the fighting style rather than specific backgrounds (EG like the 40k Detachments do in 10th)
  • Command Traits have become Heroic Traits, can be given to any Hero.

pgzChbc0pmSMBXP5.jpg

EMcPxs6z1Kz8wa1x.jpg

Edited by Clan's Cynic
  • Like 18
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting info. I think I like the sense of 'hero plus retinue' feel, and opening up subfactions to be fighting style rather than actual specific colour scheme guys is good.

Very interesting reference to 'manifestation lore' too...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm sad heroes won't be joining units, the new battle formations and the role restrictions being lifted will make for some fun and more interesting lists now in my eyes, I always find the "Oops all x" lists funny.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.835e5a00c500c8c88370417b6552ec10.png

 

Good to have official confirmation that all of these parts of the game will stay, no need to act like 4.0 will be just like the latest edition of 40k.

And the manifestation lore sounds to me like the lore of endless spells and incarnates.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:

image.png.7b6511339db9486b858f3f3240e3b874.png

This has the potential to be pretty interesting.

Sounds like the Detachments in 10th. EG you no longer pick Imperial Fists as your Space Marine sub-faction, now it's a 'defensive ranged tactics' set of rules instead. There's been some controversy around it, but I actually think it's a much better system. EG If I want to run a Phobos/stealth-themed Imperial Fist army, I can do that without feeling hindered by my paint scheme.

So for example, the Magmadroth-heavy sub-faction would no longer specifically be Lofnir Lodge, it'd probably be something like "Magmadroth Tamers Battle Formation"

Edited by Clan's Cynic
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall that sounds like quite a clever adjustment to list building, removing the ubiquitous of the one-drop battalions and theoretically making mid-tier hero choices more enticing if they come with interesting units attached.

I'm not sure how I feel about losing battleline restrictions entirely, feels like it could lead to new player traps where you load up on shiny elite units with no incentive to grab the basic screens and speedbumps that you really need.  Buuut then again most factions in the current system have tonnes of workarounds to avoid boring battleline choices anyway, so I suppose it's not that different really!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually really like these and it doesn't really stop you from taking specific units without their character, although it does give you a clear disadvantage I suppose?

It'll be interesting to see how many armies get in the indexes and what other bonuses they give (assuming they do)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scáthborn said:

While I'm sad heroes won't be joining units, the new battle formations and the role restrictions being lifted will make for some fun and more interesting lists now in my eyes, I always find the "Oops all x" lists funny.

IIRC think the heroes will have the 3" rule so they will be sticking pretty close to their own units (which these new rules show will be usually certain units). I play Cities which already have this and it pretty much works like they joined the units.

This could be pretty good since we won't need like 6 of one hero, but the game still loses the aura armies that forces everything into a blob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Sounds like the Detachments in 10th. EG you no longer pick Imperial Fists as your Space Marine sub-faction, now it's a 'defensive ranged tactics' set of rules instead. There's been some controversy around it, but I actually think it's a much better system.

So for example, the Magmadroth-heavy sub-faction would no longer specifically be Lofnir Lodge.

That is the smartest thing to do in my opinion too, the previous method of tying rules to a subfaction soft-railroaded people into painting their armies a certain way.

I've had conversations with a person who were worried that people wouldn't play with them if their flamer-heavy SM army wasn't painted like the salamanders.

Or another person who thought they couldn't play their Seraphon army like the coalesced if they did a starborne color scheme.

Usually, newer people have this worry, and the only people whom I've ever interacted with who were strongly in favor of the previous system are all hardcore spacemarine players anyway.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is effectively taking the same approach to subfactions as 10th ed 40k, as has been pointed out, but moreover it’s taking the same approach to overall list building as *drumroll* the Lord of the Rings!  

And good, it’s a cool and thematic approach which worked very well there and sounds cool here. If anything, AoS is better set up for it with all its cross-subfaction elements. There has to be a better term for that but I’m thinking of e.g. the different Idoneth castes, the Grundstok corps for Kharadron, the Lumineth elemental guys the article mentions, the Stormcast vanguard, etc.

  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...