The Rumour Thread

[Kugane]

2 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

You won't get an argument from me - except to say that I hate having any useless models in my collection (and I have a lot...).  In the case of smaller games it is at least easier to modify/repurpose those models for another edition, but I still don't like it.  If I can still field the same units, even if they are subpar, then I am much happier when an edition changes.

This is a hobby where I expect to be spending some amount of money over time.  I don't expect to have a couple of purchases and be done forever.  I don't mind buying new stuff - I just mind when old stuff is relegated through the shelf not because of competitive concerns but simply because they no longer function in the game.

Yeah you are right. Its not like these are cheap to purchase either.  It also seems games like battle for middle earth suffer from this less. Not a single one of my 15 years of purchases is unuseable. 

I would personally prefer newer and shinier sculpts of existing models each year, allowing old ones to be legal for use, than all these new releases outclassing old stuff. Or making sure every single model has a replacement scroll.

[ElectricPaladin]

5 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

...but GW needs to make these things explicit in my opinion.

I absolutely agree. The more generous interpretation is that GW simply hasn't decided yet. I think that's probably where the Sisters of Battle were over in 40k-land. It's not that GW wanted to let them wither and die, it's that they had no idea what to do with them. Then, when they figured it out, they started development. So perhaps, somewhat less dramatically, these mini-factions are hanging around just in case the team later on decides that they might make a good addition to/nucleus for a larger faction.

Or maybe you're right and GW is just making a bad call.

[ElectricPaladin]

14 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I just mind when old stuff is relegated through the shelf...

On the one hand, I totally get where you're coming from - that's never happened to a model I own (or, Nagash defend my soul, an entire army), but I feel you. On the other hand, though, I feel like if the only direction things can move is "bigger," the design space is going to get crowded. At a certain point you don't have room for something new if you don't get rid of something old. In Age of Sigmar, GW has done a pretty good job of making sure that there are still things you can do with the physical models even if what they represent has changed somewhat, but you can only push that angle so far.

[Kugane]

1 minute ago, ElectricPaladin said:

I absolutely agree. The more generous interpretation is that GW simply hasn't decided yet. I think that's probably where the Sisters of Battle were over in 40k-land. It's not that GW wanted to let them wither and die, it's that they had no idea what to do with them. Then, when they figured it out, they started development. So perhaps, somewhat less dramatically, these mini-factions are hanging around just in case the team later on decides that they might make a good addition to/nucleus for a larger faction.

Or maybe you're right and GW is just making a bad call.

It would also be nice if these minifactions get blanket protection like space marines for example do. Even if a chapter is not supported anymore, you can still run the miniatures and aesthetics as generic space marines and pick a different chapter to represent them. Perhaps these minifactions should be similar? That way the same army can have several aesthetics.

It would also help newer players who pick up random warbands to work towards an overal bigger army to play AOS.

[Skabnoze]

3 minutes ago, Kugane said:

I would personally prefer newer and shinier sculpts of existing models each year, allowing old ones to be legal for use, than all these new releases outclassing old stuff. Or making sure every single model has a replacement scroll.

I do as well.  I have significantly invested in games that massively bloated their game and at a certain point I started to question why I should purchase something simply because my collection was large enough that new additions to my faction (not simply resculpts or duplicate units) were hard to play with.  As an example I played Warmachine/Hordes from 1st edition up through the 3rd edition and I eventually just stuck most of it into the closet.  That game hit a point where to realistically play with my collection required playing more games than I could really fit into my schedule in a year or so.  The game plays at a relatively small model level and they expanded the factions into huge things where you play with such a minority of your collection if you tend to be a collector.  That really bothered me and eventually it made me question if I should even buy anything anymore - even if I thought the models looked neat.  Eventually I just stopped playing it entirely.  

[Kugane]

4 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I do as well.  I have significantly invested in games that massively bloated their game and at a certain point I started to question why I should purchase something simply because my collection was large enough that new additions to my faction (not simply resculpts or duplicate units) were hard to play with.  As an example I played Warmachine/Hordes from 1st edition up through the 3rd edition and I eventually just stuck most of it into the closet.  That game hit a point where to realistically play with my collection required playing more games than I could really fit into my schedule in a year or so.  The game plays at a relatively small model level and they expanded the factions into huge things where you play with such a minority of your collection if you tend to be a collector.  That really bothered me and eventually it made me question if I should even buy anything anymore - even if I thought the models looked neat.  Eventually I just stopped playing it entirely.  

I ended up selling my stormcast eternals for this very reason and refuse to buy into them anymore. Sacrosanct looks awesome in my opinion, But sequitors for example could easily have counted as liberators and simply giving them chapter tactics instead. Same with castigators could have counted as raptors or judicators.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Kugane

[Skabnoze]

7 minutes ago, ElectricPaladin said:

I absolutely agree. The more generous interpretation is that GW simply hasn't decided yet. I think that's probably where the Sisters of Battle were over in 40k-land. It's not that GW wanted to let them wither and die, it's that they had no idea what to do with them. Then, when they figured it out, they started development. So perhaps, somewhat less dramatically, these mini-factions are hanging around just in case the team later on decides that they might make a good addition to/nucleus for a larger faction.

Or maybe you're right and GW is just making a bad call.

No, I suspect you are correct.  AoS has obviously been quite a work-in-progress in regards to making it the successful product they want it to be.

My opinion is not that they are necessarily making a bad call - but simply that they need to make a call.  If they make something explicitly a small ally or narrative product line then there is nothing preventing them from expanding those into full forces at a later date when they get an exciting idea.  If you go far enough back in 40k they had a number of current factions that started that way.  Grey Knights were originally a super unit you could ally into your Imperial army and not their own force.  The Death Watch started out like that also.  Eventually they decided they should be full armies.  Nothing is stopping them from making some sort of book that codifies some of the smaller allegiances as narrative or ally factions and doing that would not stop them from fully fleshing those out farther down the road.

I simply think they need to make a decision about these forces and then execute those decisions sooner rather than later.

[Skabnoze]

15 minutes ago, ElectricPaladin said:

On the one hand, I totally get where you're coming from - that's never happened to a model I own (or, Nagash defend my soul, an entire army), but I feel you. 

Speaking of Nagash - that exact thing happened to me with him! 

The 40k edition swap of 2nd edition to 3rd edition seriously screwed with most people's collections regardless of what army they played.  Thankfully GW has not repeated such wide-spread army/model invalidation since then.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Skabnoze

[Kugane]

4 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

No, I suspect you are correct.  AoS has obviously been quite a work-in-progress in regards to making it the successful product they want it to be.

My opinion is not that they are necessarily making a bad call - but simply that they need to make a call.  If they make something explicitly a small ally or narrative product line then there is nothing preventing them from expanding those into full forces at a later date when they get an exciting idea.  If you go far enough back in 40k they had a number of current factions that started that way.  Grey Knights were originally a super unit you could ally into your Imperial army and not their own force.  The Death Watch started out like that also.  Eventually they decided they should be full armies.  Nothing is stopping them from making some sort of book that codifies some of the smaller allegiances as narrative or ally factions and doing that would not stop them from fully fleshing those out farther down the road.

I simply think they need to make a decision about these forces and then execute those decisions sooner rather than later.

Its what I love about assassins in 40k actually, that they can be some elite force that you slot into your imperium army as a back up. For some subfactions, like assassins, it even makes then more special to field.

[ElectricPaladin]

17 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I simply think they need to make a decision about these forces and then execute those decisions sooner rather than later.

I think the fear may be of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you announce that a faction that used to be big has been permanently sidelined, then sales are going to disappear, and if sales disappear you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you should go anywhere with it later.

I'm not saying that it's ok, I just see how it's a bind for GW.

[ManlyMuppet88]

Well I absolutely love that warband, might be my favourite so far.

Anybody managed to solve any Rumour Engine images off these previews?

[novakai]

12 minutes ago, ElectricPaladin said:

I think the fear may be of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you announce that a faction that used to be big has been permanently sidelined, then sales are going to disappear, and if sales disappear you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you should go anywhere with it later.

I'm not saying that it's ok, I just see how it's a bind for GW.

Well there are obvious moments when GW are willing to take the PR hit, such as when Forgeworld went international shipping and their product price rosed up to the Standard GW conversion. Many people where mad, angry Facebook comments where removed, partition where sign. 

But in the end GW just weathered the storm and people forgot about it. 

 

Unfortunately, (or fortunately for them) when Greenskinz and Gitmob where removed silently, their was a few comments here and there but it wasn’t a really uproar for them. I think most people knew that the models where a bit old to be salvage for AoS going forward.

heck most 40k  people are expecting mini marines to phased out with all the Primaris Marines in the coming years 

[Greyshadow]

Wow - mind blown by the Corvus Cabal! I have to have them! 🤗 Looks like I will be playing Warcry! The standard of these new war bands is just incredible.

[Overread]

43 minutes ago, novakai said:

heck most 40k  people are expecting mini marines to phased out with all the Primaris Marines in the coming years 

I still don't really get why GW made Primaris and didn't just release "new upgraded marines" as standard and retired the old models. Because right now its a bit silly there there's Marines and then Marines Plus in the same army, esp when the Marines Plus (primaris) are copy-catting the same unit types - basic marines, dreadnought etc.....

[ElectricPaladin]

1 minute ago, Overread said:

I still don't really get why GW made Primaris and didn't just release "new upgraded marines" as standard and retired the old models.

Because the people who think GW is phasing out the old model marines are just plain wrong. This is a new development in the storyline, not a sneaky way to roll out new models.

[Overread]

25 minutes ago, ElectricPaladin said:

Because the people who think GW is phasing out the old model marines are just plain wrong. This is a new development in the storyline, not a sneaky way to roll out new models.

Yes but GW could at least have given the Primaris some unique identity - they are just the same as marines just bigger different sculpts. 

Right now its just a bit silly because it also means you need 2 marine armies per marine player

[ElectricPaladin]

Hm. We probably shouldn't take this too much further, but for the record, I have a marines army, and that's really not the case. You can play a 100% primaris force; you can play a 100% old model force. You can mix the two. And in terms of both rules and novels, the primaris definitely have their own character.

Buuuuut... let's not ****** off the g/mods.

[Dirtnaps]

So ah are we done with "I don't like/am disappointed about x because I wanted x" now? Because the last 3 and a half pages have been incredibly dull and could have been it's own thread.

 

[Overread]

Just now, Dirtnaps said:

So ah are we done with "I don't like/am disappointed about x because I wanted x" now? Because the last 3 and a half pages have been incredibly dull and could have been it's own thread.

 

Yes well that's what you get with most releases

Suffice it to say there's a bit more negativity if just because many players are still waiting for their army(ies) to get new battletomes. We know sylvanath is tangled up with shipping problems and that might have had further effects on other Battletomes to come. That said it seems fullsteam ahead for Warcry, but we can't forget that Warcry is a supporting product (possibly also slaves to darkness) and also focuses on Chaos. Even though Warcry itself will have means to take warbands from other factions at launch, GW has thus far stuck to showing the new models so its all Chaos.

For those who love Chaos or who want to have a fling with it without a full army its great - for those who'd rather have some new liza...Seraphon or Trees or something else then its not "as interesting"

 

That said lets not forget Forbidden Powers only just came out and we've got the Generals Handbook (scary scary scary!) coming in a few weeks too (most likely before Warcry so we are down to weeks not months)

[Thiagoma]

2 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

I would really like GW to get AoS out of the state where we have so many factions without real rules.  Every faction needs to be contained in a real battletome or retired from the game.  AoS has it's warts, all games do, but on the whole it is one of the more excellent games that GW has ever produced in my opinion.  However, it needs to get out of the weird state it lives in with regards to the factions.  Thankfully they seem to have been doing just this.  Hopefully they continue heavily on this path until they get rules for everyone.  They managed that with 40k for 8th and for AoS to truly shine they need to do it here also.  And old legacy battletomes are not good enough either - everyone meant to be in this game needs a 2.0 battletome.

I want to see new interesting factions as much as anyone, but more than anything I want the existing old-school & AoS 1.0 messes cleaned up first.

To the Games Workshop Age of Sigmar Dev Team:  Do your homework & chores and then you can go outside and play.

Every time i see this new models i think: There is so many freaking models in RESIN and even metal in their core games and they are pumping out a lot of plastic in a side game. With the amount of plastic sculpts done on this game, they could have replaced all if not most of the AoS resin line.

The more they place Warcry on the AoS slot of releases, more i dislike the game. If it is a new core game, dont show it as AoS.

[Lernaean]

New warband looking great. This one gives me a Tzeentch vibe, even though none of them is explicitly following a certain god.

[Aelfric]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

sylvanath is tangled up with shipping

Saw what you did there

 

[SaJeel]

Does this solve any of the tumor engines?

[Kyriakin]

My only issue with so many new side game sculpts is how bad a state many of the main-line AoS sculpts remain.

Skaven, Seraphon, LoN, BCR, BoC, Bonesplittas (etc.) all have big issues with old, derpy or even absent models, and FEC - while, Vargulf aside, are technically OK sculpts - don't really match their lore.

I don't want another Silver Tower situation, where loads of cool new moulds and sculpts are usable in AoS for a while, and then disappear from sale/AoS if/when the game disappears.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Kyriakin

[chord]

Imo this whole cycle of hype sell hype sell was solved with AoS's original intent which was to focus on cool looking models that could be used in your army regardless of factions (ie grand alliances).  See a cool model just buy and it and still be somewhat competitive.