The Warhammer News Thread

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

14 hours ago, Gothmaug said:

Well, having an entire faction based on 2 kits makes it a bit necessary to tweak the normal battallion rules, as its almost impossible to use them with SoB

It's true that SoB can't make good use of core battalions because of their status as a weird, extreme outlier of an army. But it's not like they really need them all that much gameplay-wise. SoB benefitted from the shift to AoS 3 more strongly than perhaps any other army in all areas except core battalions. At least from a power perspective, they really don't need this buff.

But what I dislike the most about introducing faction-specific grands strategies, battle tactics and core battalions (and no doubt also heroic actions and monstrous rampages down the line) is that it makes it much more likely that AoS 2 battletomes will be obsoleted a lot quicker. Right now, everyone is playing the same game. We could have got away with updating just a few underpowered or badly designed old tomes. We didn't have to get back on the battletome treadmill right away again. But now that seems to be the direction in which we are heading.

[PrimeElectrid]

FAQ watch: day 41, still no sign. Now 13 days overdue. Will we get one today, next week, or even at all? Will GW even bother to tell us? Tune in next time for another round of “how not to manage customer expectations.”

[Enoby]

1 hour ago, PrimeElectrid said:

FAQ watch: day 41, still no sign. Now 13 days overdue. Will we get one today, next week, or even at all? Will GW even bother to tell us? Tune in next time for another round of “how not to manage customer expectations.”

Is this in wait for an FAQ to the FAQ? I have a feeling we may not see that until December

[PrimeElectrid]

38 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Is this in wait for an FAQ to the FAQ? I have a feeling we may not see that until December

No, there should be a GHB FAQ too.

[Enoby]

22 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

No, there should be a GHB FAQ too.

Ah yeah, kind of forgot they hadn't done one yet

I wonder if there's a holdup somewhere - like maybe a disagreement within designers, or they're just seeing how things pan out for a little bit, or nearly all rules people are working on 40k? Or maybe they just don't think they needed an FAQ for this GHB and are fine to just wait until the December FAQ. 

[PrimeElectrid]

6 hours ago, PrimeElectrid said:

FAQ watch: day 41, still no sign. Now 13 days overdue. Will we get one today, next week, or even at all? Will GW even bother to tell us? Tune in next time for another round of “how not to manage customer expectations.”

Guess we’re going to be a minimum of 16 days late then (44 days after release).

[Beliman]

Maybe there is no FAQ? Or maybe it will be released with SCE/Kruleboyz? 

[PrimeElectrid]

16 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Maybe there is no FAQ? Or maybe it will be released with SCE/Kruleboyz? 

When will the SCE/Kruleboyz FaQ come out? 2 weeks after release? 4? 5? 6? With the winter faq?

When will the winter faq come out? With the jan/feb battletomes? With the GHB22?

This is the problem when you set an expectation, miss it, and fail to communicate anything about it at all: nobody ****** knows.

[Beliman]

30 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

When will the SCE/Kruleboyz FaQ come out? 2 weeks after release? 4? 5? 6? With the winter faq?

When will the winter faq come out? With the jan/feb battletomes? With the GHB22?

This is the problem when you set an expectation, miss it, and fail to communicate anything about it at all: nobody ****** knows.

Yeah, I know.

That's why I think it's pointless to continue counting time. It will not help you or this forum; and as you said, nobody knows when FAQs will be released... if they are released.

[PrimeElectrid]

27 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Yeah, I know.

That's why I think it's pointless to continue counting time. It will not help you or this forum; and as you said, nobody knows when FAQs will be released... if they are released.

The point is to raise awareness because many events are now operating a no FAQ no play policy. So when Stormcast and Orruk battletomes come out in three weeks time, when will they be event legal? October? November? Never?

 

[Mutton]

Warclans rules preview
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/08/13/mob-em-skewer-em-or-zap-em-three-ways-to-waaagh-in-the-new-orruk-warclans-battletome/

I really like the Beast-Skewer ability. It's much more reliable than the stinky "D6 damage" most artillery get.

[Holy_Diver]

Hey!

Somebody gives a big poke to Mr. Aosshorts!

Where are the results of the Orlando tournament?? 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Holy_Diver

[Enoby]

30 minutes ago, Holy_Diver said:

Hey!

Somebody gives a big poke to Mr. Aosshorts!

Where are the results of the Orlando tournament?? 

I know that a Hedonites list came 4th, but unclear about the other standings

[yukishiro1]

https://www.goonhammer.com/white-dwarf-467-sons-of-behemat-update/

The SoB stuff is out, and it's exactly what it sounded like - matched play custom battalions, a custom GS, and multiple custom battle tactics. On the bright side, the GS is strictly worse in every possible way than the one SoB will always take no matter what anyway (if that is a bright side - it reinforces that GW is not capable of balancing these), only one of the battle tactics seems to fall into the useful pile, and the battalions are mostly just a rehash of the core battalions. On the other hand...why? Just why? Why not just have put in a rule letting megas count as leaders or subleaders in a pure SoB army? That would have opened up the core battalions without starting the special snowflake treatment.

The fact that GW didn't overpower the special snowflakes this time around doesn't mean they won't next time around. They've introduced a massive source of potential imbalance and bloat into the game for no real reason. It's just so disappointing to see them having said one thing to sell people 3.0 - a reset! everyone'll be on the same page! only to abandon it before the first tome even comes out.

Edited August 18, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Mutton]

12 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

It's just so disappointing to see them having said one thing to sell people 3.0 - a reset! everyone'll be on the same page! only to abandon it before the first tome even comes out.

Hypocrisy has always been part of the GW "charm."

[JackStreicher]

58 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Just why? Why not just have put in a rule letting megas count as leaders or subleaders in a pure SoB army? That would have opened up the core battalions without starting the special snowflake treatment.

Easy: They do it so they can sell the WD to you.

[AaronWilson]

To be fair, the stuff in the WD for SoB could of been ALOT worse. The battalions don't anything new, they use the same bonuses we currently know just in different arrangements. There is no "Take these 3 models and gain X rules" which what the problem is before, simply giving new ways to arrange core battalions I think is both fine and a relief what from what it could of been. The GS & BT are also not over the top and add a bit of flavour to the army, so I actually think it's all fine

I do however think publishing it in a WD is a terrible way to release any sort of official rules release. 

[Chaos Shepard]

I think the reason it is in a White Dwarf is to give the army a quick fix. Sons of Behemat weren't in need of a whole new book so it would be wasteful to rush an update just to add battalions to Sons of Behemat. I hope they plan to do this with other struggling armies they do plan on updating right away. Maybe update Ossiarch Bonereapers' Relentless Discipline or something to fix the terrible state Beast of Chaos are in.

[The Red King]

The only way they could print a Grand Strategy that Sons would actually take over beastmaster is "you score 3 VP for buying the boxes". Seriously, beastmaster is "as long as you dont get tabled" just like lumineth with "prized sorcery" and I hate it. Even if those werent already 2 strong armies they also get a free 3 VP for not getting tabled and that's dumb.

[Kadeton]

12 hours ago, Chaos Shepard said:

I think the reason it is in a White Dwarf is to give the army a quick fix.

There are errata documents for this exact purpose. No reason for it to be in a White Dwarf other than to try to squeeze out that little bit more money from people who don't otherwise buy the magazine.

8 hours ago, The Red King said:

The only way they could print a Grand Strategy that Sons would actually take over beastmaster is "you score 3 VP for buying the boxes". Seriously, beastmaster is "as long as you dont get tabled" just like lumineth with "prized sorcery" and I hate it. Even if those werent already 2 strong armies they also get a free 3 VP for not getting tabled and that's dumb.

Hold the Line is also "as long as you don't get tabled" for Sons, so that's nice.

The current batch of Grand Strategies are very poorly designed. Make the Land Tremble is markedly better, in that you need to do something actively to achieve it, not just survive. The saving grace is that the Bland Strategies will rotate out of play with the next GHB, and hopefully the design team can do better next iteration.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

There are errata documents for this exact purpose.

I don't think that's the case.

Errata docs fix actual errors, right?

This is new rules stuff, not mistake fixes. WD makes sense to me.

 

[Kadeton]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I don't think that's the case.

Errata docs fix actual errors, right?

This is new rules stuff, not mistake fixes. WD makes sense to me.

Probably depends on how argumentative you want to be about the semantics of 'error'.

I would say that any discrepancy between the printed content of a battletome and the way the designers intend for that battletome to be played constitutes an error. That can include omissions. It doesn't matter whether the discrepancy comes about as a result of a decision made after the book has been published - the difference between intended play and written rules is still an error.

In that context, the battletome not including the Grand Strategy and Battle Tactics that are intended to be played with that army is an error that should be corrected via errata, yes.

More pragmatically, I simply want to have all the changes to the way any given army plays to be collated in one document. It's a terrible idea for players to have to reference more than one "source of truth".

I don't care if they release the rules in White Dwarf first, and then follow that up by incorporating them into the FAQs in a reasonable timeframe. But I'm not padding out my collection of rulebooks with random magazine issues and having to remember which ones go with which battletomes. That's just poor data management.

[PrimeElectrid]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I don't think that's the case.

Errata docs fix actual errors, right?

This is new rules stuff, not mistake fixes. WD makes sense to me.

 

The 3rd edition FAQs specifically changed a number of rules and rewrote a number of warscrolls.

In the past they have used FAQs to change points

So no, erratas don’t just fix errors.

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, PrimeElectrid said:

The 3rd edition FAQs specifically changed a number of rules and rewrote a number of warscrolls.

In the past they have used FAQs to change points

So no, erratas don’t just fix errors.

Not arguing, just exploring an interesting point of discussion -

There seem to me to be three things here:

1. FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions - You, know, things that are not in need of correction but do need clarification. 

2. Updates - Things like points updates and rules changes. The 3rd ed. stuff fits here.

3. Errata - As the root of word indicates, a correction of an error.

The Sons update in WD is squarely in section 2 above.

Now, would it be awesome for GW to, effectively, give away for free the content they sell us in WD? Sure, but that's never been the business model. We've been carrying around 3 books and 7 White Dwarfs for decades.

Also, does GW even grasp the distinction in the three bits above? Do they break up docs by these types? Dunno.

I'm just having a friendly discussion here.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Sleboda
Wrong word

[PrimeElectrid]

18 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Not arguing, just exploring an interesting point of disgusting -

There seem to me to be three things here:

1. FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions - You, know, things that are not in need of correction but do need clarification. 

2. Updates - Things like points updates and rules changes. The 3rd ed. stuff fits here.

3. Errata - As the root of word indicates, a correction of an error.

The Sons update in WD is squarely in section 2 above.

Now, would it be awesome for GW to, effectively, give away for free the content they sell us in WD? Sure, but that's never been the business model. We've been carrying around 3 books and 7 White Dwarfs for decades.

Also, does GW even grasp the distinction in the three bits above? Do they break up docs by these types? Dunno.

I'm just having a friendly discussion here.

Sure.

My point is that GW just gave away free updates. They changed points, updated rules, and rewrote some warscrolls. Whether they call it an FAQ, errata or something else is irrelevant: they changed rules to fit their version of the game. Most notably, they removed a lot of rerolls.

They could have done the same for the Sons update or indeed any faction.