The Rumour Thread

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

It's a battletome that's well made save for one mechanic that makes it into a one-trick-pony tome. Sure you can take other options, but you're purely doing it for the fun. 

And that would be a crime, now wouldn't it? /s

Aren't we always, by default, playing for the fun of it? I'll never get the argument that there is fun and then there is winning in Warhammer.  It's a game. Practically by definition we play it for fun. Or, to put it another way, if you find you do not enjoy a given activity, such as Warhammer, it's a little bit crazy to keep doing it.

 

I get that when you play at tournaments it makes sense to take the list that you believe gives you the greatest chance to take the trophy, but that's really such a narrow part of the hobby overall. I think there is plenty of room to include the other units when not in the tournament environment.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Sleboda

[Lucentia]

For what it's worth I think that the hero-centric nature of HoS is a deliberate design choice to represent that these forces are often operated by powerful, charismatic leaders and their sycophantic devotees, rather than, say, well-drilled line troops or hordes of marauding warriors, etc.

Now whether that's necessarily good or strong design, or whatever, is perhaps a discussion for another thread, personally I quite like it and post-FAQ have played with a variety different lists which are just fine for casual and tournament play, but there's always going to be subjectivity in these things.

[KingBrodd]

I've seen a few comment elsewhere with zero proof or basis for reason saying that the Sons of Behemat have been delayed until Spring 2021. No idea where that came from nor why that would even be a thing.

[willange]

47 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

And that would be a crime, now wouldn't it? /s

Aren't we always, by default, playing for the fun of it? I'll never get the argument that there is fun and then there is winning in Warhammer.  It's a game. Practically by definition we play it for fun. Or, to put it another way, if you find you do not enjoy a given activity, such as Warhammer, it's a little bit crazy to keep doing it.

 

I get that when you play at tournaments it makes sense to take the list that you believe gives you the greatest chance to take the trophy, but that's really such a narrow part of the hobby overall. I think there is plenty of room to include the other units when not in the tournament environment.

Well I kind of get the argument.  Warhammer isn't much fun if it felt like you never had a chance to win.  My opponents and I will usually state beforehand if we want a "hardcore/minmax" game or a "meme" game or a "B-tier" game.  Then we both do our best to fall into that bracket so that both players have a reasonable shot at winning.  So if one player was going to play Namarti-based Idoneth, then that player will usually say so ahead of time so that they don't end up going against shoot Tzeentch or Petrifex Bonereapers.  Ideally, that means we can have fun AND play to win, which ultimately is the most fun.

[Overread]

50 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

And that would be a crime, now wouldn't it? /s

Aren't we always, by default, playing for the fun of it? I'll never get the argument that there is fun and then there is winning in Warhammer. 

When I said (and when many others do) that you take a certain kind of list "just for fun" its meaning that you are taking the list primarily for fun knowing that the list is significantly sub-optimal for the army. In a game where competition is part of the game, taking a vastly sub-optimal option is not always the best path. My point is that Slaanesh right now if you're not rocking up with multiple keepers summoning more keepers then you are tactically  choosing to play a weaker force. That's not bad  but its also not good either and its not good for the health of the game nor the army. 

46 minutes ago, Lucentia said:

For what it's worth I think that the hero-centric nature of HoS is a deliberate design choice to represent that these forces are often operated by powerful, charismatic leaders and their sycophantic devotees, rather than, say, well-drilled line troops or hordes of marauding warriors, etc.

Now whether that's necessarily good or strong design, or whatever, is perhaps a discussion for another thread, personally I quite like it and post-FAQ have played with a variety different lists which are just fine for casual and tournament play, but there's always going to be subjectivity in these things.

I think its a deliberate choice to help drive sales of an army that basically got all new leader models and a new big leader model (keepers). They only got one new non-leader model - the fiend - otherwise all the others were brand new leader type models. So having a tome that focuses on leaders and drives them as the key part of the army makes sense purely from a business angle of selling those models. 

As for the whole lore angle that doesn't really hold water for me because you can argue lore however you want (esp in the mortal realms). 

4 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

I've seen a few comment elsewhere with zero proof or basis for reason saying that the Sons of Behemat have been delayed until Spring 2021. No idea where that came from nor why that would even be a thing.

Eh I'd be shocked; GW have previewed them and there's a lot of time between now and 2021 next year. Furthermore we are ware that the Tomes are printed and shipped so GW is unlikely to want to sit on stock for a whole year. 

[Grimrock]

16 minutes ago, Overread said:

I think its a deliberate choice to help drive sales of an army that basically got all new leader models and a new big leader model (keepers). They only got one new non-leader model - the fiend - otherwise all the others were brand new leader type models. So having a tome that focuses on leaders and drives them as the key part of the army makes sense purely from a business angle of selling those models. 

Well, could be a chicken/egg scenario. The keeper was always going to be redone, but maybe GW also wanted a faction that was primarily focused on heroes. So after the keeper was finished they put their energy into making more heroes rather than a new unit or two and figured that the upcoming slaves tome would eventually fill in the gaps. Hero-centric is certainly a unique concept for the tome and definitely has a valid place in the game. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised at all if the overtuned nature of the summoning was due to a business decision rather than playtesting, but we don't really know one way or the other. 

As far as the optimal bit... well this is a rumor thread so probably not worth digging too deep into. I will say however that from my experience keepers are incredibly unreliable. They're just as likely to do 2-3 damage as they are to nuke a monster in one swing (although people seem to only ever remember the time they were nuked and not the whiffs). Can't tell you how many times my keeper has activated twice and barely did anything. The summoning evened them out because even if you whiffed horribly and lost two keepers for nothing you'd be able to summon one right back and try again. With the increased summoning costs you can't really do that anymore, so it might be smarter to start looking at more consistent options. 

[shinros]

12 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Well, could be a chicken/egg scenario. The keeper was always going to be redone, but maybe GW also wanted a faction that was primarily focused on heroes. So after the keeper was finished they put their energy into making more heroes rather than a new unit or two and figured that the upcoming slaves tome would eventually fill in the gaps. Hero-centric is certainly a unique concept for the tome and definitely has a valid place in the game. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised at all if the overtuned nature of the summoning was due to a business decision rather than playtesting, but we don't really know one way or the other. 

As far as the optimal bit... well this is a rumor thread so probably not worth digging too deep into. I will say however that from my experience keepers are incredibly unreliable. They're just as likely to do 2-3 damage as they are to nuke a monster in one swing (although people seem to only ever remember the time they were nuked and not the whiffs). Can't tell you how many times my keeper has activated twice and barely did anything. The summoning evened them out because even if you whiffed horribly and lost two keepers for nothing you'd be able to summon one right back and try again. With the increased summoning costs you can't really do that anymore, so it might be smarter to start looking at more consistent options. 

The mistake GW made was releasing a daemon tome instead of a mortal/daemon tome. The point values and abilities basically scream buy more keepers please! It's glaring when slaanesh mortal wizards get only three spells to choose from (they all suck compared to daemons.) and some of command abilties and artifacts don't even work if you have a mortal hero since they can't use locus.

To go back to rumours at least GW hinted they are going to do something with the splintered fang.

Edited June 29, 2020 by shinros

[willange]

1 hour ago, shinros said:

To go back to rumours at least GW hinted they are going to do something with the splintered fang.

What was that hint?  I completely missed it!

[Matrindur]

[SerialMoM]

12 minutes ago, Matrindur said:

Nice!

[mmmbbb3]

table for team-play options

 

side note: i noticed that legion of azgorh isn't on the list along with tamurkhan horde, i really hope that doesn't mean what i think it does, as my chaos dwarfes are currently in the mail

[shinros]

18 minutes ago, willange said:

What was that hint?  I completely missed it!

It was in the white dwarf when they were discussing the warcry warbands. They said slaanesh will be in their future.

[Still-young]

5 minutes ago, shinros said:

It was in the white dwarf when they were discussing the warcry warbands. They said slaanesh will be in their future.

Considering they mentioned in the lead up to Warcry about the warbands being not dedicated to specific gods, I think it’s possible you’ve misread something there. Which issue is that in? I imagine they just meant in-universe, Splintered Fang feed quite well into Slaanesh, rather than it being an actual hint for the future of the Slaanesh range. They don’t really do hints like that in White Dwarf. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Still-young

[Jeremierty]

Does someone recognize the images of the warscrolls at the bottom right corner ??

(Sorry for the poor quality )

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jeremierty

[mmmbbb3]

3 minutes ago, Jeremierty said:

Does someone recognize the images of the warscrolls at the bottom right corner ??

Flamespyre Pheonix?

[Jeremierty]

2 minutes ago, mmmbbb3 said:

Flamespyre Pheonix?

I don't know it just seems interesting that they included new or updated warscrolls 

[Dankboss]

It looks like the Phoenixes are being updated

[Marcvs]

1 minute ago, Dankboss said:

It looks like the Phoenixes are being updated

or maybe it's part of the "Flying monsters warscroll" section

[valenswift]

Am I the only thinking the GHB looks a bit disappointing? Apart from the new points values I’m not really interested in any of it looking at that contents page. 

[Dankboss]

The Drakesworn Templar is there too

[Ar-Pharazôn]

I really hope there is some update for Forge World. 

[Dankboss]

Looking at it closely, it doesn't match up with current warscrolls, so may be altered for the aforementioned aerial game type.

[shinros]

1 hour ago, Still-young said:

Considering they mentioned in the lead up to Warcry about the warbands being not dedicated to specific gods, I think it’s possible you’ve misread something there. Which issue is that in? I imagine they just meant in-universe, Splintered Fang feed quite well into Slaanesh, rather than it being an actual hint for the future of the Slaanesh range. They don’t really do hints like that in White Dwarf. 

I am not at home at the moment but I will dig it up. I made a post in this very thread.

Here is the page.

 

The image is gone due to the age of the post.

Edited June 29, 2020 by shinros

[EccentricCircle]

1 hour ago, mmmbbb3 said:

table for team-play options

 

side note: i noticed that legion of azgorh isn't on the list along with tamurkhan horde, i really hope that doesn't mean what i think it does, as my chaos dwarfes are currently in the mail

I'd say that Azgorh should be able to ally with any of the Chaos God armies, and fractiously with other stuff in Chaos, but not ally with anything in Order or Death at all. Fyreslayers seem to be the usual exception to Chaos and Order not being able to ally, but I don't think they'd work with the Dawi Zharr, who must hate the fyreslayers for infringing their whole "dwarves of fire" trademark.

I'd actually give Dawi Zharr the ability to ally with most if not all of destruction though, since mixed orc and dwarf armies are kind of their thing, and they have slave ogres and giants even today. If this were the old world, you could exclude Ironjaws due to the whole black orc incident, but in the mortal realms I don't think that matters any more. An Azgorh - destruction alliance probably wouldn't be an equitable one, more them enslaving the other faction of course.

In some ways that could give them an interesting option to open up the field completely. What if they could ally with anything, but had rules for slave revolts if their troops got out of hand. Something to play around with in open play perhaps!

[KingBrodd]

3 hours ago, Overread said:

Eh I'd be shocked; GW have previewed them and there's a lot of time between now and 2021 next year. Furthermore we are ware that the Tomes are printed and shipped so GW is unlikely to want to sit on stock for a whole year. 

Exactly, I dont know why that rumour started. I think earliest we will see them is August and latest October.