The Rumour Thread

[Overread]

GW has enjoyed such a good year last year that they had money to buy land and a new factory (still under construction) as well as topped the stock market for sharprice growth and value for the whole of the UK. I think that their changes have worked phenomenally well and its reflected in the profits and shares. AoS is in a good place and getting better and GW was rewarded for those changes with improved sales and general improved uptake of the game at large. 

 

Of course GW is not sony or such, they know their share value will come down, that sales will ease off (a big part was bringing back a lot of mature gamers and customers who had moved away after Kirby's management era where long term customers were not a valued market target). So GW won't continue to be a record breaker and they are not aiming to be one; but they are strong and AoS is doing very well. 

[Skabnoze]

37 minutes ago, Overread said:

Remember AoS started out with NO army support. No rules, no real warscrolls, no real focus. It then went through several big changes as well as a huge management change of CEO and focus at GW. In general I honestly say for all the yeares it has existed as "AoS" its worth only counting it since 2.0 lunched (or thereabouts since there were several 2.0 compatible tomes before 2.0 dropped) 

I agree with your overall point, but I would argue the point where it turned around and became relevant was the first General's Handbook.  It is a minor quibble though.

Prior to the General's Handbook Age of Sigmar was till a perfectly fine game.  However, the lack of organization structure within the provided rules shifted that burden onto the players and meant that it was highly unlikely to ever reach a broad audience.  There is nothing wrong with games that put a heavier emphasis on making the players agree on the parameters of how they will play it.  Dungeons & Dragons and role playing games in general have pretty much built their entire model upon this.  But the miniature wargames space, despite starting off that way, had already spent decades creating frameworks to remove much of the social contract burden from the players.  By the time GW tried to shift Age of Sigmar back to a much earlier time the broader market was already used to these frameworks and expected them to exist.  The first General's Handbook was when GW officially added this back into the game and you can really see the broader rate of adoption from that point.

[Mutton]

Is it weird that the biggest thing I'm looking forward to is the GHB'19? I crave to see the point changes so I can get back to list building without fear.

[Travis Baumann]

I thought all the old-time TK fans were clamoring for their return so they could use their existing armies (basically as-is).  

If they come back in some other form, will any of the vocal TK'ers actually be happy or will we just hear another huge round of whining and wringing of hands at how GW has done them wrong yet again?  Are the TK legacy players actually so sad about their lore/story/characters being dead or about their army being not playable on a tournament/match play level?  I am confused about what they actually want here.

I have massive old armies from WHFB and when I got into AoS I had to eventually let all that go. Dark Elves are NEVER coming back in any form that I will be able to field that army.  At first I was upset, now I am over it and moved on to what, in my opinion, are way more fun armies to build, paint, and most importantly read and imagine about.  I initially had a mixed order list fielding what units translated over but that really does not look as cool on the battlefield as a cohesive from-the-ground-up AoS purposed army.

My Nighthaunt and Idoneth armies are super fun to paint, to list build, to write back stories for.  The Dark Elves and High Elves got kind of stagnant and boring.  What is there left to say about their backstory or how they carved a niche out of these Mortal Realms?  I just bought Loon Curse for the Sylvaneth side and that is going to be my next army.  Love Drycha and the new Archregent character.  

I am all for letting some of the past go.  I have a massive Seraphon army with over 70 skinks, 40 saruon, old Slann on palanquin, etc.  I am looking forward to what the future of Seraphon hold but I do not feel compelled to rebase these or even love the aesthetic of the really old plastics.  I would love to see a totally reborn Seraphon line at some point.

I feel bad for those holding on for the really old legacy stuff to come full circle but I have to ask, if you love the game and the world, why don't you check out a new army in the mean time?  By the time you finish it and are having fun again, you wont be as crushed when things don't go exactly how you hoped with how they deal with the old legacy stuff.

I personally hope the new Death release is a reimagining of Barrow Kings, Liche Lords, and Death mages combining Death Rattle, Zombie Hordes, and Death constructs into a really cool aesthetic.  Legions of Nagash does not need to be redone.  Nighthaunt definitely do not need to be redone.  While I love Vampires in all different forms, I have never liked them being part of the Warhammer World.   We have enough already with Neferata and the other dude in LoN.  I really hope the new Death faction is something other than Vampires.

When GW is not knee-****** reacting to overly loud keyboard warriors they actually surprise us with outstanding new takes on high fantasy that I personally never saw coming and want more of that.  Every faction does need a 2.0 Battle Tome to bring them up to speed and in the case of all Order Legacy force from Freeguild to High/Wood/Dark Elves to Ironweld/Duardin to whatever... I hope they roll this all into one soup Tome whether it be Free Peoples or Remnants of the World that Was or whatever but just do it and then everyone can have one last round of cursing the gods and lamenting their fortunes and we can all move on with the massive/awesome/new Mortal Realms and explore all things that might be instead of once was.

[Overread]

9 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I agree with your overall point, but I would argue the point where it turned around and became relevant was the first General's Handbook.  It is a minor quibble though.

Prior to the General's Handbook Age of Sigmar was till a perfectly fine game.  However, the lack of organization structure within the provided rules shifted that burden onto the players and meant that it was highly unlikely to ever reach a broad audience.  There is nothing wrong with games that put a heavier emphasis on making the players agree on the parameters of how they will play it.  Dungeons & Dragons and role playing games in general have pretty much built their entire model upon this.  But the miniature wargames space, despite starting off that way, had already spent decades creating frameworks to remove much of the social contract burden from the players.  By the time GW tried to shift Age of Sigmar back to a much earlier time the broader market was already used to these frameworks and expected them to exist.  The first General's Handbook was when GW officially added this back into the game and you can really see the broader rate of adoption from that point.

I think also DnD and Wargames have a very different structure and approach.

In DnD the core game is designed to flow through a roughly neutral party - the Dungeon Master. A player who builds the world and setting and quests and NPCs that the main body of players interact with. Therefore any conflict, events, chances, dangers, etc... it all gets filtered through the DM. So you can have a really strict by the book game or you can go wild off the road and if the DM is good enough, and honestly if the game rules system is too, then the game can go there. I think at its core is the fact that its a bit like playing agianst the AI in a computer game - ergo there is no direct need for competition between the players. Plus because its filtered through a human (the DM) the balance of powers can be adjusted to suit the party; players with less optimised characters can still be given chances to shine; battles/encounters can be adjusted on the fly to react to the parties strengths and weaknesses. A party of players that wants "hard core" mode with perma deaths and the like can have that whilst one who wants a more relaxed day can have that too. They can even vary it through each play session or even within the session itself. 

 

Wargames are not the same as there's no DM, instead the game is filtered through its own rules only. Furthermore they are all competitions between two players. Even if the players are super non-competitive the whole structure of the game is built around two forces fighting each other; its built on that competition. Now there have been a few "AI" attempts for tabletop games over the years to provide a neutral opponent, but I don't think they've ever found a way to make it fun and accessible to the market as a whole. 

Historical Wargames do get a bit more leeway in that sometimes they are aiming to re-create famous battles, so balance of points and such might not come into play and they might even have set phase actions such as forces retreating or reinforcements appearing etc... at set times to reflect the historical flow of the war. Sci-fi/fantasy games don't tend to do this  as much if at all really, though they do often have things like sieges or unbalanced battleplans. 

 

 

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree, AoS at its start was player filtered, the core issue though was that the core rules weren't good enough to provide unity (each region would be exceptionally different to the next - heck each club would be); nor a good base to work from. Furthermore it was trying to have a DM situation but with two DM's on opposing sides of a competitive setup. So again that's a lot more chat and less game. Sure it drew a lot of fans from game makers, who wanted to make game and who found that without any formal game it was easier to get people involved; but yeah I agree it was not setup for a good long term community growth. 

[alghero81]

1 hour ago, Acid_Nine said:

you know what? I'm almost thinking it's going to be Vlad Von Carstein reborn or something funky like that.

That would mean Soulblight more than TK or Deathrattle, would be good don't get me wrong but if we are talking about skeletons the only one from WHFB comes to my mind and fits the description is Krell. Unless they reinvent one of the minor characters from Nehekhara that did not follow Settra and elevate him/her as a Mortarch. Otherwise my bet and probably more logical option, is a new character like Lady Olynder. But Katophranes would not make any logical sense as they were never Nagash allied, thrived in his temporary demise and were cursed forever by Nagash... To see them would mean the Nagash allied imprisoned in Lake Lethis does not get freed for some reason and in Shadespire Order frees the Katophranes to fight Nagash and have their first "allied" Death force since the Age of Myth. Interesting turnout but how realistic??

[EccentricCircle]

55 minutes ago, Travis Baumann said:

I thought all the old-time TK fans were clamoring for their return so they could use their existing armies (basically as-is).  

If they come back in some other form, will any of the vocal TK'ers actually be happy or will we just hear another huge round of whining and wringing of hands at how GW has done them wrong yet again?  Are the TK legacy players actually so sad about their lore/story/characters being dead or about their army being not playable on a tournament/match play level?  I am confused about what they actually want here.

I can only speak for myself, but the "Who wants TK back" thread has comments from other fans of the faction, so might be worth checking out.
So, to address these questions, what I'm most keen on is the aesthetic returning. I already use my Tomb Kings army as is, using compendium rules, and that if fine.
Would I like a more modern battletome with fresh lore and new models for the existing faction? Sure, that would be welcome, and would increase the variety of games I can comfortably play them in. However I'm not holding out much hope for that. I don't think anyone is waiting, staring forlornly at shelves of chariots and skull catapults, longing for the day when Settra return. I think we've all pretty much collected other armies since, or else dropped the hobby entirely.

As far as the return of old units, some would be nice to get another box of, but my collection is pretty much complete, so that's not a major issue either. Its more a case that I love the art and archetypes of ancient egypt, and broadly prefer that take on the undead to the gothic horror vibe of the Ex Vampire Counts stuff.  I don't hate what's available at the moment, far from it, I have armies for every death faction, and love the Nighthaunt dearly. But egyptian undead just have a certain something that appeals to me.

As far as returning characters, I actually couldn't care less. I've enjoyed reading about the TK characters, but I actually don't think that they are as central to the themes of the Tomb Kings as many people think. To me what sums up the themes of the faction, besides its look, is neutrality.

The classic Tomb Kings weren't world conquering tyrants, or holy crusaders, they didn't really give a damn about order or chaos, or good or evil. They would fight anyone who disturbed their lands, and weren't above invading other countries to get their stuff back from museums, but on the whole they were far more reasonable than most undead. In that respect I could see them working as a mercenary faction, willing to fight with order or death as the situation arises.

I can't see them working with Nagash in their present state. But I don't think that their present state is how they'd come back. Nagash himself was once a liche priest, so he has as much claim to the legacy of Nehekhara as any of the others (even if he was the one to destroy it). All of his legions have had Egyptian elements since day one. If that is the route they go down then I wouldn't consider it to really be Tomb Kings per se, but I would still be happy with it, so long as it captured the look and feel of ancient Egypt in a solid manner.

So no, I won't just complain if they do throw me a bone. I'll be excited to see what they do with the old ideas, and what I can make out of them. I'll always have my old army, and if it gets easier to use that it will be great, but if it doesn't then there are plenty more skeletons in the desert.

[Thiagoma]

2 hours ago, Ogregut said:

What faction is it? 

We don't know what's in the GHB yet and which factions will get stuff

High Elves. 6.5k , all bought on AoS  era. Started with Spire of Dawn.

Had no problem playing GA Order since we have good warscrolls, but on AoS 2.0 power spike, it became a strugle.

Would be happy with a simple consolidation on GhB until a BT comes out. 

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

I think also DnD and Wargames have a very different structure and approach.

In DnD the core game is designed to flow through a roughly neutral party - the Dungeon Master.

*lots of words in between*

Wargames are not the same as there's no DM, instead the game is filtered through its own rules only. Furthermore they are all competitions between two players.

 

1 hour ago, Overread said:

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree, AoS at its start was player filtered, the core issue though was that the core rules weren't good enough to provide unity (each region would be exceptionally different to the next - heck each club would be); nor a good base to work from. Furthermore it was trying to have a DM situation but with two DM's on opposing sides of a competitive setup. So again that's a lot more chat and less game. Sure it drew a lot of fans from game makers, who wanted to make game and who found that without any formal game it was easier to get people involved; but yeah I agree it was not setup for a good long term community growth. 

There is a lot to unpack in your reply, and I am not really going to do it for sake of not heavily derailing the main thread.  What you say is mostly true for wargames in today's world, but it was not always so.  If you go back to the 80s you will find that most wargames, including GWs, were much closer to Role Playing games.  40k included a 3rd player "Judge" as a sort of Dungeon Master arbitrator in Rogue Trader and only lost that when it moved to 2nd edition.  Editions of Warhammer Fantasy prior to 4th edition were very different beasts as well.  Remember that GW miniatures began as D&D models similar to what Reaper is today and the game of Warhammer grew out of a desire to create a game specifically for use with these miniatures.  In today's world Wargames have developed into a distinct genre and most of them have some shared characteristics - such as more formal army/forces construction rules that we take for granted anymore.  If you go back far enough the wargames scene was quite the wild-west in terms of what was out there and the ideas that many games tried out.  For example, Battletech went through numerous "match play" frameworks from squad-based (Lances/Stars) construction, to tonnage, to abstract point values.  And then there are games such as Historicals which have been around for a stupid long time and are generally trying to accomplish something much different from most wargames.

My ultimate point was that Age of Sigmar on first release looks very much like an effort to roll back the clock almost 30 years.  There is nothing wrong with that, but GW has spent that amount of time grooming their customer base with certain expectations for their products.  In addition, Games Workshop has always had such an outsized position in this niche market that most successful competitors were forced to structure their games very similarly and so the broader market has much of the same expectations.  There is room in the market for niche products and AoS at launch was very much a niche product.  GW was obviously not satisfied with it being so niche and once it became obvious to them that the product did not have as much appeal as they hoped they were forced to change direction by adding those frameworks back into the game.  That effort has been an ongoing evolution, and 2nd edition was a major step, but it truly began with the General's Handbook.

But as I said originally, we are just arguing over a minor detail.  I think we are both on the same page for the most part with the broad strokes. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Skabnoze

[Aden]

I'm mad excited for the 1000 point structured matches coming in the GHB and hope Skirmish style play becomes heavily supported. In an era where many things demand your time, I really appreciate the option that matches don't take as long and I'm that I'm not hauling a piece of luggage to the game store. 

 

[Skabnoze]

38 minutes ago, Aden said:

I'm mad excited for the 1000 point structured matches coming in the GHB and hope Skirmish style play becomes heavily supported. In an era where many things demand your time, I really appreciate the option that matches don't take as long and I'm that I'm not hauling a piece of luggage to the game store. 

 

I agree 100%.  The longer I have played wargames the more I have enjoyed and leaned into skirmish games rather than the big multi-hour commitments big games like 40k, Warhammer Fantasy, and AoS generally are.  I really enjoy Age of Sigmar and while it is fun at 1k, the rules and army books are obviously not really meant for that point level and AoS suffers some of the same issues that Warhammer Fantasy did when you scale it down.  A rules framework meant to make these types of games work better is a great idea.  I am also extremely interested in Warcry for much the same reason.

Regardless of whether you like all of these various smaller side products being developed in the AoS universe - I think we all have to admit that it is a good thing on the whole that AoS has grown to the point where GW finds it a worth endeavor to explore the broader universe rather than just concentrate solely on the main core game.  A game becoming popular enough to reach that point means it is growing and in a very good position in regards to the core game and it provides new avenues to onboard people into the main game.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Skabnoze

[GeneralZero]

Well, regarding the 1000 points, I can give an idea that work pretty nicely here in France for 40K. For 40K, it is called the 169. It it the point limit of single unit/datasheet. You can't play a unit more expensive than that or a hero more than 169. (And eventually can't play it more than once but there are some exception like battleline).

Well, in AoS, you could play such a game: X point limit and Y max unit/warscroll points, meaning  big units or heros, out, oversised units, out, spam, out, etc... (for example X=1000, Y=200)

Will give you games back to basics, fast and ....fun.

Edited June 7, 2019 by GeneralZero

[Zanzou]

3 hours ago, Thiagoma said:

High Elves. 6.5k , all bought on AoS  era. Started with Spire of Dawn.

Had no problem playing GA Order since we have good warscrolls, but on AoS 2.0 power spike, it became a strugle.

 

Prime example of why I’ll always be a staunch defender of the position that, all factions and units that were sold in official “Age of Sigmar” boxes should be supported in Age of Sigmar. Anything less than that is pure misrepresentation at best, an outright scam at worst. Removing certain Spire of Dawn warscrolls completely from the game after so many people bought it.... Not good.

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Zanzou

[Ogregut]

22 minutes ago, Zanzou said:

Prime example of why I’ll always be a staunch defender of the position that, all factions and units that were sold in official “Age of Sigmar” boxes should be supported in Age of Sigmar. Anything less than that is pure misrepresentation at best, an outright scam at worst. Removing certain Spire of Dawn warscrolls completely from the game after so many people bought it.... Not good.

 

Which warscrolls aren't available? I just looked all of them up on the app.

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Folks, back to rumours please. If you wish to continue to discuss, start a new thread

[Sleboda]

10 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:

As far as the return of old units, some would be nice to get another box of, but my collection is pretty much complete, so that's not a major issue either. Its more a case that I love the art and archetypes of ancient egypt, and broadly prefer that take on the undead to the gothic horror vibe of the Ex Vampire Counts stuff.  I don't hate what's available at the moment, far from it, I have armies for every death faction, and love the Nighthaunt dearly. But egyptian undead just have a certain something that appeals to me.

That's me pretty much spot on.

I want an AoS 2.0 TK book so that I can field my current TK armies without people complaining, with me feeling good about them, and without having to have an awkward conversation before using them.

I also would be ok with a "TK-inspired" new faction that captures just enough of what makes TK TK - reliability, consistency, ancient-ness, loss, and lots of ornate statues and equipment. Plus, an attitude of "eff you, Naggie."

Edited June 8, 2019 by Sleboda

[novakai]

14 minutes ago, xking said:

So, is June a dead month for AoS?

GHB is coming out this month

rumor is that Sylvaneath is coming out on the 29th

[Whitefang]

47 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Plus, an attitude of "eff you, Naggie."

Will pay money to see this

[Clan's Cynic]

6 hours ago, Travis Baumann said:

I thought all the old-time TK fans were clamoring for their return so they could use their existing armies (basically as-is).  

If they come back in some other form, will any of the vocal TK'ers actually be happy or will we just hear another huge round of whining and wringing of hands at how GW has done them wrong yet again?  Are the TK legacy players actually so sad about their lore/story/characters being dead or about their army being not playable on a tournament/match play level?  I am confused about what they actually want here.

It's almost as if Tomb King players are not a homogeneous hivemind and are that individuals have different wants and ideas.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Clan's Cynic

[Thiagoma]

15 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

It's almost as if Tomb King players are not a homogeneous hivemind and are that individuals have different wants and ideas.

TK lore right now should be about Settras Revenge and a oposition to Nagash and Chaos. That or Khalida serving as a Mortach while in secret searching for Settra.

From a business perspective, if GW were to use the cool models as a part of an undead faction, i would buy some to play along with my old school TKs since my local community is totally ok with legacy armies!

[novakai]

well, Settra maybe a Stormcast right now and I don't think Khalida is the being trap under Lake Laphis

chances are that the new death faction is going to be another subservient force of Nagash much like how Nighthaunt are. I know people find it boring but the narrative right now is Sigmar vs. Nagash and I don't think within the timeframe of this release that they would introduce a rebel death faction oppose to Nagash at the moment. of course, Nagash could overplay his hand that the being he released some uncontrollable ****** that laughs off in the sunset once it's free and does it own mortal realm conquering thing.

 

[Zanzou]

7 hours ago, Ogregut said:

Which warscrolls aren't available? I just looked all of them up on the app.

Not to continue discussion on this matter but just to answer your question and I will stop there- Poisoned Wind Mortar Weapon team is one example of a warscroll missing from that set that you can’t find anywhere anymore at all and does not have points- even though sold in ‘AoS’ Spire of Dawn.  If you still see it on your app you likely have not updated your app in a long time.  Feel free to PM me if there’s still confusion.

——-

Back on topic- if the Sylv June 29th rumour is true, it’s odd to me that GW wouldn’t announce the date at this point, if they’re actually sure. I mean, everything has been revealed and everyone is kind of awkwardly standing around since new Sylvaneth turned up as their official brick and mortar screen saver weeks ago. 😅

Edited June 8, 2019 by Zanzou

[novakai]

1 hour ago, Zanzou said:

——-

Back on topic- if the Sylv June 29th rumour is true, it’s odd to me that GW wouldn’t announce the date at this point, if they’re actually sure. I mean, everything has been revealed and everyone is kind of awkwardly standing around since new Sylvaneth turned up as their official brick and mortar screen saver weeks ago. 😅

2

it not odd, Gw doesn't tend to give a hard date on their releases in general, they usually only announce what is coming out two weeks in advance every Sunday.

so If Sylvaneath is coming out on 29th they wouldn't announce it until the 16th

[Furuzzolo]

I'm a simple man but if a black library writer want to put an easter egg in a book, lets say a stormcast eternals Settra, wouldn't he ask permission to gw?

And, I mean, if GW give that permission couldn't we assume that no plans for this Settra are on the table? Just guessing here, do not throw stones 😌

[pseudonyme]

10 hours ago, GeneralZero said:

Well, regarding the 1000 points, I can give an idea that work pretty nicely here in France for 40K. For 40K, it is called the 169. It it the point limit of single unit/datasheet. You can't play a unit more expensive than that or a hero more than 169. (And eventually can't play it more than once but there are some exception like battleline).

Well, in AoS, you could play such a game: X point limit and Y max unit/warscroll points, meaning  big units or heros, out, oversised units, out, spam, out, etc... (for example X=1000, Y=200)

Will give you games back to basics, fast and ....fun.

Always wondered what that meant on my local GW 40k events.

For AoS I could imagine a limitation like: a unit cannot be more than twice its minimum size / more than 20 wounds / more than X (300, 350, 400) points