Jump to content

The Rumour Thread


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JPjr said:

Well I see it as working with on 2 levels.

Out of universe it’s a handy bit of branding to hang on all the releases within this iteration. So we got Soul Wars - Malign Sorcery*, Soul Wars - Forbidden Power, Soul Wars - WOTE & I presume any other supplements that come out before the next edition will be similarly branded.

ObviouSly we’re hardly overburdened with supplements but still it’s nice to have them all packaged up like that.

But then in a in-universe level everything from Soul Wars on has effectively been dealing with the fallout from the Necroquake and its side-effects both in terms of things like Endless Spells and the Optimum Arcana but also, within their battletomes we see just how it has effected, sometimes dramatically sometimes less so, each faction.

So things like the Wrath of the Everchosen, whilst being big events in their own right, are linked, directly or not, to the Necroquake in one way or another.

I think of it like The Soul Wars are WW2 and within that there are multiple theatres of conflicts and hundreds of different battles that all might be going on independently of each other, shifting alliances and power vacuums that each faction is looking to exploit.

hopefully if we do get more WOTE style books then each one will pair up 2/3 factions and detail just a part of the bigger story. Some super dramatic (Orruks v Excelsis perhaps) some on a smaller scale perhaps but obviously important to those factions.

then when “AoS 3 : Slaanesh is Free” drops all the supplements, battletomes and the like released over the following years will reflect that & its effect on the realms 


 

* actually just checked MS was branded Soul Wars - Malign Sorcery though obviously it was a key part of it, but guess they handed thought of branding everything like that at that point

AOS 3.0 Slannesh is Free would be a fantastic kicking off point for the Chaos side of the narrative and the Siege of Excelsis the same for Destruction.

1 hour ago, JPjr said:

hey look! All the Psychic Awakening &, I think, Malign Portents short stories published in dead tree format. Didn’t realise they were doing this.

seems like it was just for the since cancelled Adepticob but I know there were a lot of people here wanting the MP one at least so might be copies for sale floating around now.


 

 

I'm definitely going to try grab that Malign Portents collection.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KingBrodd said:

AOS 3.0 Slannesh is Free would be a fantastic kicking off point for the Chaos side of the narrative and the Siege of Excelsis the same for Destruction.

I am much more interested in learning what Slaanesh's machinations have been  while in captivity. I keep making the argument that having unfettered access to Malerion will have allowed the Dark god to stroke the Draconian lord's ego, if not turning Malerion to Chaos at the very least turning him against Sigmar. Similar whispers could have reached Tyrion's ear maybe imploring him to look for a certain sword which was just mentioned in a recent Warhammer community article. I feel like through Slaanesh's corruption and lies none of the Aelves will truly be able to trust each other. But there are so many more plans Slaanesh could have woven in captivity and I feel like Slaanesh is just as dangerous in bonds as when free. I also like that Morathi, who followed Slaanesh in the past, will likely be the most resistant to plots of the Prince of Pleasure.

However, I don't think freeing Slaanesh will necessarily prevent these stories and I personally do eventually hope for a return, but I am much more invested in exploring the idea of these vain lesser gods trying to tangle with a true force of nature such as one of the Chaos Gods. 

As for the next edition I like the current defence of the Eightpoints taking narrative centre stage for Death and Chaos, as I am part of the bandwagon that is hoping for more defined terrain and siege mechanics. Meanwhile, Gordrakk's seige of Azyr would likely be the central conflict and the basis of a starter set. It will be fun to see Death and Destruction putting Chaos and Order on the defensive for a while. Maybe freeing Slaanesh will be the culmination of the story as having the Fab Four* back together will finally repel Nagash's invasion.

*The Great Horned Rat is clearly Pete Best 

Edited by Neverchosen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Beliman said:

I'm a bit confused about Soul Wars.
How many "conflicts" did it have?  Time of Tribulations, Malign Portents, Wrath of Everchosen...(?)

 I need a chronology 😅

Apply our A.C and B.C to the Necroquake. Before Quake and After Quake.

Soul Wars:

Tribulations, gods and armies begin to notice something is wrong as Shyish and Nagash's power leaks into other realms.

Malign Portents,  the great campaign to discover and stop the god of death's machinations ranging from mortals going crazy and yelling secrets from their rooftops to gods battling life & time eating black voids.

NECROQUAKE, everything changes.

Aftermath, Underworlds open up with millions of NightHaunt flooding the realms, Deepkin are driven out of hiding, Living Spells rampage from the realm edges as natural disasters, realmscapes and realmgate connections to sub-realms are altered.

Forbidden Power,  the Stormvaults are unearthed with the Penulbrum engines damaged by the quake. Evil secrets are found and relations with the aelven gods of light are weakened for the engine corruption.

Battle of Lake Lethis, the weakened vaults has Nagash seek to claim the indomitable soul of Katakros beneath the undead lake.

Wrath of the Everchosen,  with the Ossiarchs complete Nagash strikes against the All-Gates/Eight-points which has been rocked by the Necroquake and made more vulnerable in both it's defenses and reinforcements from crumbled chaos kingdoms across the realms.

 

With how far reaching the Necroquake is and it's effect we could see the continuation of the Soul Wars for quite a while. Even Gordrakk besieging Excelsis would be part of it as it was from a Stormvault he got his grand siege weapon. Then it extends to what else has changed in the realms and been awoken that we haven't seen yet.

Edited by Baron Klatz
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Speaking to the AoS design team, at one of the Open Days last year I got the distinct impression that Wrath of the Everchosen was them seeing if the format is popular or not and that we'd likely be seeing more books along this lines as time goes on.

I think the question I have, is what the life expectancy for this style of book is going to be.  Seeing a number of battalions that appeared over the last year have their points pulled in the latest generals handbook would certainly make me more cautious at committing to a series of 6 or 7 books that could have a portion of content invalidated*.  I do feel a little lack of love for things that have been produced in the past or outside of battletomes - forbidden power, white dwarf etc.

* please don't mistake this as me for saying matched play is the only way to play - I (and I'm not on my own) use pitched battle profiles for nearly all of the games I play and would be worried that that running something that's no longer supported could give me or my opponent a raw deal.

Actually I didn't realize it, but this is a really good point. As per the Generals Handbook FAQ, the Wrath of the Everchosen sub factions and rules are no longer legal for pitched battle games without opponent permission or house rule. When I saw it I was thinking it was just referring to old battalions but it just has a blanket 'rules from older publications'. So as it stands they've set a precedent that no publication lasts past the annual Generals Handbook, meaning the life expectancy of any publication is at most 1 year. I was already iffy on the supplements because they always include a portion of rules for armies I don't play, but this really puts the nail in the coffin for now. 

The FAQ I'm referring to:
Q: Can I use rules from older publications in Pitched Battle (2020) games, such as Mercenary Companies from the General’s Handbook 2019?

A: Yes, but only if your opponent agrees or a house rule permits it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JPjr said:

hey look! All the Psychic Awakening &, I think, Malign Portents short stories published in dead tree format. Didn’t realise they were doing this.

seems like it was just for the since cancelled Adepticob but I know there were a lot of people here wanting the MP one at least so might be copies for sale floating around now.


 

 

@TwiceIfILikeIt and I got out goodie box two days so. Same stuff, and I can say that yeah, the books are nice. 

I sorta feel sorry for GW. The New 40K Necron/Marine combo sprue had to be designed to get major WOWs at the event. It's very cool that they sent this to all who registered even after the fact.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grimrock said:

Actually I didn't realize it, but this is a really good point. As per the Generals Handbook FAQ, the Wrath of the Everchosen sub factions and rules are no longer legal for pitched battle games without opponent permission or house rule. When I saw it I was thinking it was just referring to old battalions but it just has a blanket 'rules from older publications'. So as it stands they've set a precedent that no publication lasts past the annual Generals Handbook, meaning the life expectancy of any publication is at most 1 year. I was already iffy on the supplements because they always include a portion of rules for armies I don't play, but this really puts the nail in the coffin for now. 

The FAQ I'm referring to:
Q: Can I use rules from older publications in Pitched Battle (2020) games, such as Mercenary Companies from the General’s Handbook 2019?

A: Yes, but only if your opponent agrees or a house rule permits it.

I woudn't put Allegiance Abilities and subfaccions in the same label as "rules from older publications... such as Mercenaries".

Remember that if you invalidate WotE Allegiance Abilities, then all battletomes would be invalidated too.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it still has validity.

You can also still get years of mileage out of it with the tome's siege rules, roaming monster tables, battle plans and realmscape scenarios.

Even if you're not a Narrative player there's lots of stuff there to spice up Matched Play battles if not purely build lists with anymore.

40 minutes ago, El Antiguo Guardián said:

That team is amazing. I didn´t like bloodbowl at all... but new teams are very nice for painting jobs.

Same. I'm wondering about a themed kitbash for Legions of Nagash for a Tactics Ogre reference with a pink witch deathmage commanding pumpkin head deadwalkers. A Living City flip with Sylvaneth would be interesting too...

Edited by Baron Klatz
  • LOVE IT! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I woudn't put Allegiance Abilities and subfaccions in the same label as "rules from older publications... such as Mercenaries".

Remember that if you invalidate WotE Allegiance Abilities, then all battletomes would be invalidated too.

Wrath of the everchosen is a supplement though in GW terms. That's a different kind of product than a Battletome. So that should/could be the distinction they are making. 
But the wording 'older publications' sounds very concrete but is clearly creating more uncertainty. I agree. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there's no sound way to resolve this one as there's nothing in the rules that I'm aware of that defines the term publication or distinguishes between rules from different sources. Hopefully GW will weigh in and fast. If WotE is invalid, then Legion of Grief and Defenders of Lethis should also be out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

Wrath of the everchosen is a supplement though in GW terms. That's a different kind of product than a Battletome. So that should/could be the distinction they are making. 
But the wording 'older publications' sounds very concrete but is clearly creating more uncertainty. I agree. 

 

They don't talk about supplements or battletomes, only "rules from older publicacions".

If we accept to invalidate Lethis or WotE, then we should invalidate every publication with rules that came before GHB2020 (unless a FAQ makes Allegiance Abilities from battletomes diferent from other Allegiance Abilities from other oficial sources).

Edited by Beliman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the new Blood Bowl Spooky Team gotten anyone hyped for a new Death faction?! Imagine a new Death army with werewolves vampires and pumpkin heads?! Haha and if not I’ll get nighthaunt when they get a new tome 😁.

Edited by NkfPanda
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Wrath of the Everchosen be invalidated by the new GHB? I mean the Battalions for the Legion of Chaos Ascendant are explicitly there so for sure at least those allegiances are valid including the First Prince. What would make them different than the other chaos gods allegiances?

I think what that rule says is all stuff that is more for narrative fluff like White Dwarf or temporary placeholders like the mercenaries, but in general all things that have points, last only until a GHB cancels them. Legion of Grief has no points so it’s still valid. Legion of Chaos Ascendant has no points but its warscrolls do, so it’s still valid. Nighthaunt white dwarf battalions are dead because the battalions are not mentioned anymore.
Pretty simple. If it has points, risks to be invalidated. If there’s a structure behind it, then they would need another FAQ to delete it.

Edited by alghero81
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, NkfPanda said:

Has the new Blood Bowl Spooky Team gotten anyone hyped for a new Death faction?! Imagine a new Death army with werewolves vampires and pumpkin heads?! Haha and if not I’ll get nighthaunt when they get a new tome 😁.

Yeah that would be amazing. Have to be honest Warhammer Fantasy has still some cards to play to attract interest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Beliman said:

They don't talk about supplements or battletomes, only "rules from older publicacions".

If we accept to invalidate Lethis or WotE, then we should invalidate every publication with rules that came before GHB2020 (unless a FAQ makes Allegiance Abilities from battletomes diferent from other Allegiance Abilities from other oficial sources).

I guess this is the issue with the FAQ, we don't really know where to draw the line. White Dwarf makes sense, older GHB rules make sense (since they mentioned mercenaries) and obviously army books don't make any sense at all. Supplements like Wrath of the Everchosen, Malign Sorcery, or Forbidden Power are in a bit of a grey area. Certainly they're older publications and there isn't a significant difference between them and, for example, the Syll Eskian host from White Dwarf, but they're also full books rather than one offs so it would make sense if they stuck around for longer. Hopefully this gets cleared up officially by GW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, alghero81 said:

Why would Wrath of the Everchosen be invalidated by the new GHB? I mean the Battalions for the Legion of Chaos Ascendant are explicitly there so for sure at least those allegiances are valid including the First Prince. What would make them different than the other chaos gods allegiances?

I think what that rule says is all stuff that is more for narrative fluff like White Dwarf or temporary placeholders like the mercenaries, but in general all things that have points, last only until a GHB cancels them. Legion of Grief has no points so it’s still valid. Legion of Chaos Ascendant has no points but its warscrolls do, so it’s still valid. Nighthaunt white dwarf battalions are dead because the battalions are not mentioned anymore.
Pretty simple. If it has points, risks to be invalidated. If there’s a structure behind it, then they would need another FAQ to delete it.

Yeah everybody understands that's what they were intending I assume. But it's a case of being badly worded. And there are a few unclear elements as well.

How far back are the subfactions introduced through White Dwarf valid? Because you decided they are 'more for narrative fluff' but some of those white dwarf subfactions have real play to them. Furthermore, what's even the point of invalidating narrative rules 😂? I don't know anyone that would actually listen to that if they are aiming for a narrative game. It also isn't in line with their own description of narrative play to delete things, because its a friendly playstyle that require you and your opponent to talk how you change the game anyway. 

All in all I think the community pushback is more to do with lazy wording in the FAQ than a real misunderstanding of the intent. 

Also why do you consider the mercenary rules a 'temporary placeholder? What place is it holding, and for what? :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

Yeah everybody understands that's what they were intending I assume. But it's a case of being badly worded. And there are a few unclear elements as well.

How far back are the subfactions introduced through White Dwarf valid? Because you decided they are 'more for narrative fluff' but some of those white dwarf subfactions have real play to them. Furthermore, what's even the point of invalidating narrative rules 😂? I don't know anyone that would actually listen to that if they are aiming for a narrative game. It also isn't in line with their own description of narrative play to delete things, because its a friendly playstyle that require you and your opponent to talk how you change the game anyway. 

All in all I think the community pushback is more to do with lazy wording in the FAQ than a real misunderstanding of the intent. 

Also why do you consider the mercenary rules a 'temporary placeholder? What place is it holding, and for what? :) 

There aren't any faccions in the white dwarf*. Only batallions and some warscrolls. All this profiles are not in GHB2020 so they are not 100% legal for pitched Battle and tournaments.

Mercenary Companies have some warscrolls that become Legends in GHB2020, so the FAQ makes sense.

Imo, Allegiance Abilities don't have a "profile" and they are not part of Legends.  The Core Rules or GHB2020 doesn't mentions any distintion about "Battletome Allegiance" and "supplement Allegiance Abilities",so they are the same until FAQ'd. 

That, at least for my Gaming Group and our TO, makes  all Allegiance Abilities legal for Tournaments and Pitched Battles.

Maybe in GHB2021 Will change that (with Jaws of Mork in the next White Dwarf), but until then, if you invalidate Lethis, then, all battletomes should be invalidated too.

*Edit: The Host of Syll'esske have a subfaction abilities in the October2019 White Dwarf. GHB2020 only invalidates their Warscrolls btw.

Edited by Beliman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NkfPanda said:

Has the new Blood Bowl Spooky Team gotten anyone hyped for a new Death faction?! Imagine a new Death army with werewolves vampires and pumpkin heads?! Haha and if not I’ll get nighthaunt when they get a new tome 😁.

Totally! Everytime someone says the word Soulblight all im hearing is Deadwalkers, new zombie models in the style those found on the Corpse Cart, Pusgoyles and now even on the new Blood Bowl Black orcs. Or why stop there we might have zombie orruks, ogors or even giants. I even got a colourscheme ready and a listbuilding plan and then I wake up and realize that this is pure wishlisting... But damn it would be nice...

Edited by Greasygeek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

There aren't any faccions in the white dwarf*. Only batallions and some warscrolls. All this profiles are not in GHB2020 so they are not 100% legal for pitched Battle and tournaments.

Mercenary Companies have some warscrolls that become Legends in GHB2020, so the FAQ makes sense.

Imo, Allegiance Abilities don't have a "profile" and they are not part of Legends.  The Core Rules or GHB2020 doesn't mentions any distintion about "Battletome Allegiance" and "supplement Allegiance Abilities",so they are the same until FAQ'd. 

That, at least for my Gaming Group and our TO, makes  all Allegiance Abilities legal for Tournaments and Pitched Battles.

Maybe in GHB2021 Will change that (with Jaws of Mork in the next White Dwarf), but until then, if you invalidate Lethis, then, all battletomes should be invalidated too.

*Edit: The Host of Syll'esske have a subfaction abilities in the October2019 White Dwarf. GHB2020 only invalidates their Warscrolls btw.

Q: Can I use rules from older publications in Pitched Battle (2020) games, such as Mercenary Companies from the General’s Handbook 2019?
A: Yes, but only if your opponent agrees or a house rule permits it

This is the wording. We are all making distinctions to make it logical. That distinction in not in the answer. Older publications, bam! That’s it. 
the whole point of the FAQ and errata should be to avoid being unclear. And this isn’t it. 

and again I agree. The way it’s worded, if you feel the wrath of the everchosen is a publication, white dwarf is a publication, etc. Then the battletomes should also be counted as a publication. And with the above lazy wording should be disallowed. 
 

although I cannot stress enough. It’s not a big deal, the community is reasonable enough to just deal with it and not go all ‘but raw it says you can’t’...
just annoying that they used such a broad term when they could have easily made it more specific. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kramer said:

community is reasonable enough to just deal with it and not go all ‘but raw it says you can’t’...

Well... around here GW‘s words are law. Everything that is not allowed for matched play is „untrue“ and people refuse to let you play it... 👌🏻
So now they all can‘t play anything anymore except Lumineth 🤣

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

3 hours ago, Greasygeek said:

Totally! Everytime someone says the word Soulblight all im hearing is Deadwalkers, new zombie models in the style those found on the Corpse Cart, Pusgoyles and now even on the new Blood Bowl Black orcs. Or why stop there we might have zombie orruks, ogors or even giants. I even got a colourscheme ready and a listbuilding plan and then I wake up and realize that this is pure wishlisting... But damn it would be nice...

This is what I'm excited about, new zombies and hopefully Werewolves. And if they release a new Mega Gargant Zombie I'll have to buy it. Anything Gargant get in ma belly!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Well... around here GW‘s words are law. Everything that is not allowed for matched play is „untrue“ and people refuse to let you play it... 👌🏻
So now they all can‘t play anything anymore except Lumineth 🤣

Hahaha which is only possible due to the delay 😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NkfPanda said:

Has the new Blood Bowl Spooky Team gotten anyone hyped for a new Death faction?! Imagine a new Death army with werewolves vampires and pumpkin heads?! Haha and if not I’ll get nighthaunt when they get a new tome 😁.

Bfff that would be an auto-buy for me. I know that I need to buy other armies for the ETC... But death are the best ones 😋

But I don´t think that they are going to do that...

BloodBowl has also a vampire and a khemrian teams, right?

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...