The Rumour Thread

[michu]

Yeah, those are probably temporary keywords as you don't have Kurnothi and Gitmob armies right now.

[michu]

Lumineth lore part 2!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/02/10/the-lumineth-lowdown-part-2-spear-phalanxes-and-runic-symbolismgw-homepage-post-2/

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, Overread said:

We also don't know what GW will do for 3.0. They could wholesale change things up; or they might make it more a collation of expansion rules and updated content and refine what they've got. The benefit there is that it would work well with existing tomes, but also mean that the game isnt' throwing away all the 2.0 balancing adjustments and material built up. 

Whatever they do, I would really prefer to not have the Battletomes all rendered junk at the drop of a new edition.

This is especially true with the limited edition books. I buy all the books, but I pay the extra for limited edition versions for armies I play more regularly. I don't mind replacing a $40 book once every four years or so, but not an $80 book (and definitely not if it's sooner than four years).

[Nezzhil]

5 minutes ago, michu said:

Lumineth lore part 2!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/02/10/the-lumineth-lowdown-part-2-spear-phalanxes-and-runic-symbolismgw-homepage-post-2/

"Their armour is bedecked with sun and moon icons, symbolising the twin gods of Hysh, for their warriors are neither Tyrionic nor Teclian exclusively."

[alghero81]

Yep Tyrion confirmed together with Teclas. Waiting to see the model now!

[Baron Klatz]

It also says there's runes for the old aelven pantheon and the four elemental spirits. Then it mentions the sun and moon of Tyrion and Teclis.

Feels like they're just laying the groundwork for the sub-factions and different army backgrounds rather than hinting at Tyrion.

I'm with side "Tyrion with his own future (winged) army to match Malerion's future Shadowkin".

But we'll see though!

Edited February 10, 2020 by Baron Klatz

[elfhead]

12 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

"Their armour is bedecked with sun and moon icons, symbolising the twin gods of Hysh, for their warriors are neither Tyrionic nor Teclian exclusively."

That caught my eye too,  sounds nice. So we can expect units that are exclusive to one or the other.

also liked the artwork with the purple color scheme. 
 

too bad I didn’t post my idea about the rune that represents river-mountain-sky-zenith because now I can’t claim I called that... there are a lot of tubes that look like classic high elves but this one stood out. 

[sandlemad]

Those are some pretty long spears. Cool. Nice as well to see some more of the eastern influence there through the mandalas.

[Aelfric]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Whatever they do, I would really prefer to not have the Battletomes all rendered junk at the drop of a new edition.

This is especially true with the limited edition books. I buy all the books, but I pay the extra for limited edition versions for armies I play more regularly. I don't mind replacing a $40 book once every four years or so, but not an $80 book (and definitely not if it's sooner than four years).

I agree.  I would much raher see an expansion of sub-factions for existing armies, as they have been doing recently in WD and the new Everchosen book.  This would keep the factions fresh without having to replace the Battletomes themselves( I have enough out-dated Battletomes as it is ).

[Forrix]

4 hours ago, Kramer said:

On the other hand, my only complaint about the Ogor Mawtribes tome is that the Thundertusk has no role, not even if you want to play pure BCR. Make it a effective priest, then it's a choice between a wizard and the huskard. Make it a horde clearing monster, then it has a separate role. No matter the points drop it's not going to help much. 

Ironically one of my complaints about the BCR side (aside from what you said about Thundertusks) is that the Huskard/Frostlord artifact table feels awful (seriously, how many lists do you see that take one?). Including a new artifact table could help certain factions out immensely and since its strictly an addition to the battletome it doesn't invalidate what's written in the tome. AKA a new player who picks up the Battletome doesn't find that nothing actually works like written in the book anymore but rather learns that there's a bunch of additional toys he can get to enhance his army. The same could be done with subfactions, which we're already seeing in Wrath of the Everchosen.

[Greasygeek]

5 hours ago, michu said:

I disagree. Strongly. It's like saying that DnD doesn't need new sourcebooks, because players and GMs could make everything by themselves. Of course you can make your own rules for sieges and aerial battles but GW makes it easier providing base to build upon. 
 

Feel I might be a bit misunderstood here, maybe.. 🤔

Just saying that we already have so many fine extra rules from previous GHBs  primary meant for narrative play. That I feel no need to buy additional since my group play few narrative games. We do however play some and I suspect that many players play a narrative every now and then but few are the players that play narratives so often that they would need new inspiration every year.

Following your own DnD example. Say you play that 2-3 times a year. Now I would think it makes much less sense to stuck up on new sourcebooks annually, but that might just be me.

I guess it really comes down to how many players that actually use the ton of different ways to play AOS for more than a one time thing. To my experience playing against friends, roaming the net and talking to people at the FLGS, that comes down to very few.

I admit that I might be wrong and maybe 99% of the playerbase live to play narratives, However I havn’t met them.

You think they are one trick ponies? 
 

Some of the modes, Sure I do. 
Aerial combat, Rules of Engagement and Siege to name the first that comes to mind. Cool ideas, and fun for a campaign or a single narrative, so thank you GW for the additional tool, however I found them easily forgotten and overlooked.  I was hoping that RoE would be a thing, but appearently not in my area.

Maybe it’s due to english being my second language or something but if I ever gave the expression that I am against creative inspiration let me be the first to throw rotten fruit at my own face.. eh or something. Im personally just finding it increasingly more pointless to buy the Ghb if it wasn’t for the point update, abilities n such.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Greasygeek
Auto correct messing me up

[swarmofseals]

17 minutes ago, Greasygeek said:

Maybe it’s due to english being my second language or something but if I ever gave the expression that I am against creative inspiration let me be the first to throw rotten fruit at my own face.. eh or something. Im personally just finding it increasingly more pointless to buy the Ghb if it wasn’t for the point update, abilities n such.

I'm just repeating the arguments found on @ianob's wonderful podcast, but according to his reckoning the biggest impact of the 2019 GHB were the fundamental rule changes, particularly to the matched play battleplans. There's a strong case to be made that the GHB 2019 ruleset is just a lot more solid and playable even disregarding point changes. Whether or not it's worth buying the whole book just for that set of 10 or so pages though is a different question!

[Kramer]

2 hours ago, Forrix said:

Ironically one of my complaints about the BCR side (aside from what you said about Thundertusks) is that the Huskard/Frostlord artifact table feels awful (seriously, how many lists do you see that take one?). Including a new artifact table could help certain factions out immensely and since its strictly an addition to the battletome it doesn't invalidate what's written in the tome. AKA a new player who picks up the Battletome doesn't find that nothing actually works like written in the book anymore but rather learns that there's a bunch of additional toys he can get to enhance his army. The same could be done with subfactions, which we're already seeing in Wrath of the Everchosen.

could work. Still seems fiddly to me though. 

In your example I will still need to bring those extra rules with me. When listbuilding i'm still switching between sources. And as a new player I 'learns that there's a bunch of additional toys he can get to enhance his army.' while learning a new army. 
From a balancing perspective, the rules either have to be soft enough that it hasn't too much impact because if they do the game becomes a mess of rules interactions that are hard to keep track off. Or so good they replace the old in all but name.

Again could work, still wouldn't be a fan of it.
(Just like I'm not a fan of adding subfactions through white dwarf or campaign books, unless restricted to those settings. Which I love, just don't feel it has a place in matched play)

Edited February 10, 2020 by Kramer

[michu]

@Greasygeek And I'm actually on the other side of the argument. Narrative and open part gave me many ideas for new games (especially the cityfight and ambush rules and new ways to set terrain and build armies). For me the matched play section could not even exist but the whole point of GHB is to provide something for all ways to play and I would not like for any of those sections to dissapear. Maybe narrative play is just not for your gaming group?

Oh, and BTW, yes, I'm that kind of player that would regularly buy new sourcebooks. For me more options = more fun.

[Nos]

6 hours ago, Overread said:

I'd expect AoS 3.0 to be further off than 2021. It just seems a bit close considering its 2020 and we are only just getting all armies to 2.0. Furthermore don't forget there's at least 3 new armies as yet unreleased for AoS that we know of. 

Luminoth, Giants and Shadow Aelves. 

Ontop of that we can make the bold, but pretty reliable assumption that there will be at least a Vampire Battletome for Death and perhaps one more Destruction army as well. 

 

So that's at least 5 new armies to release. It would make sense from GW's point of view to keep things on 2.0 and try and get the game to a state where a move to 3.0 happens and is an update to all armies without GW having plans to add many if any more. AoS does, at some point, have to stop going sideways with adding more armies and focus on going lengthways and increase the variety within each army. 

Theres never been a single edition of Warhammer or 40k which has had all its army roster either released or updated before the next iteration. No reason to expect that to change. It works very well.

I think it's very likely AOS 3.0 will launch with at least one new faction to entice existing as well as new players

I also doubt they will abandon the cycle of updating armies either as the whole point of a new version  is new rules and mechanics, things which will make 2.0 battletomes obsolete, not to mention the way in which army books become defunct due to power creep and other rule advances. Especially as each update cycle is now no longer just an army book but also dice, cards, endless spells etc. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Nos

[KaptainWalrus]

59 minutes ago, Nos said:

Theres never been a single edition of Warhammer or 40k which has had all its army roster either released or updated before the next iteration.

6th Edition WHFB was complete. 

https://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Army_Books_6th_Edition

[EccentricCircle]

Yeah, unfortunately for those of us hoping to have a "complete" game for a while, it's only a matter of time before they start the update cycle again . Codices sell, when theg run out of factions that need a new army book, that tends to be their cue to drop a new edition ( if they even get all the factions updated, which is a variety)

[Death1942]

I feel like AOS 3 would be more of a 2.5 rather than a full proper new edition.  There are only a handful of rules that need to be tweaked and I think they could easily build it in such a way that all the current battletomes can slot into it without much effort.  I think every army need to see some model refreshes or new kits come out so I would love to see AOS 2.5/3 be a consolidation of model ranges.

As for us having plenty of missions already, sure we definitely have a lot of good ones but if you look at a game like Infinity you can easily have more missions and just rotate the pool of available ones in a "season" (most likely a year between GHBs).

[Greasygeek]

1 hour ago, swarmofseals said:

Whether or not it's worth buying the whole book just for that set of 10 or so pages though is a different question!

Totally agree with you, and the podcast on this. As I wrote in my first comment this goes under the tweaking part of the book which I find an essentiel part of the GHB. So IMHO the GHB should mainly focus on tweaking existing rules and as I said earlier, rewriting warscrolls.  Then leave the 5-10 pages for new narrative ideas which I suspect very few AOS players on a global scale use regularly. 

Now if GW decided that one of the modes example RoE is something they will really bet on, it too should be a standard part of the Fantasy Generals Handbook (working title😉), I just don’t like constantly buying a book filled with creative inputs when I feel like the last 4 I already own has way more inspirational content than I can ever use.

Its like this

Me: “Hey GW Im totally looking for a blue shirt”.

GW: “Alright dude, we got one for you”.

Me: “GW it would be nice if you sold some pants too?”.

GW: “yeah well, we also sell a nice Marine blue shirt”.

ME: “wow okay then, let me have it too, but what about the pants?”.

GW: “You know how good you would look in this cobalt shirt?”.

ME: thanks, let me have that also but do you even sell pants?”.

GW: at some point we will, but untill then we got just the Ice blue shirt for you”.

me looking back at my now blue wardrobe wandering if the police might think that I am an escaped convict: 

“Alright then Ice blue is my favourite colour, but tomorrow I will be back to get  those pants”.

🙂

 

[Greasygeek]

1 hour ago, michu said:

Maybe narrative play is just not for your gaming group?

Actually I do think that it is. Like I said earlier we play in a group of non competitive but matchplay friendly buddies. Most of us has only a single but huge army since we like bringing and trying new things. We also enjoy the lore and many of the novels, and the hobby aspect of the game above listbuilding. We even tried to go through the Realmgate Wars battleplans a few years back. Also got the Firestorm campaign which we are currently rewriting to fit our Shyishian setting.

Oh, and BTW, yes, I'm that kind of player that would regularly buy new sourcebooks. For me more options = more fun.
 

Cool, they must really love you at Kickstarter🙂

Look Im sorry if I come off as insulting, Im just trying to put a little humor into the debate. 
I guess this is just a matter of oppinions.

You know what that cool guy (from a movie I can’t remember the title of) said about oppinions right?

 

[michu]

Are you aware that after Seraphon BT that part of GHB that provided allegiance abilities is free? No need to eliminate narrative part (especially as thinking that  you don't like it and probably almost no one use it anyway is selfish) as there are free pages for warscrolls updates?

[Aeryenn]

17 hours ago, Overread said:

Ontop of that we can make the bold, but pretty reliable assumption that there will be at least a Vampire Battletome for Death and perhaps one more Destruction army as well.

It was probably said earlier but also chaos dwarfs are mentioned in Ossiarch Bonereapers battletome. Just don't ask me to look for it.

[GeneralZero]

What do you think about our upcoming  2 new entries: the Fomoroid Crusher and Mindstealer Sphiranx? (ouside the fact that the miniatures are amazing of course 😉 )

[JackStreicher]

42 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

What do you think about our upcoming  2 new entries: the Fomoroid Crusher and Mindstealer Sphiranx? (ouside the fact that the miniatures are amazing of course 😉 )

The sphiranx is solid.

the crusher... I don’t know. He has the output of a ardboy with the Warchanter buff yet it costs way more.

I guess one could make them work by abusing the MWs on the charge and You can make them deadly by positioning them right though.

our army rarely has any points at all to spare so it‘s hard to fit them in

Edited February 11, 2020 by JackStreicher

[Kasper]

1 hour ago, GeneralZero said:

What do you think about our upcoming  2 new entries: the Fomoroid Crusher and Mindstealer Sphiranx? (ouside the fact that the miniatures are amazing of course 😉 )

I think the cat could be quite potent in some armies - Like Beasts of Chaos. Like they could have it proc and then multicharge a key unit. The only issue is that it activates in the hero phase, so it already needs to be quite close unless you rely on being charged with the cat screened by cheap chaff. The other models seem kinda meh.