Lurynsar

In rumour news isn’t the Fyre, Deepkin and then Death the exact rumour we had a few weeks ago? Looking like it’s playing out. And if there’s more than 1 model for each (I think 2 and 3 were mentioned) then it could be the “big” model other people are speculating on.

That could be because Soulblight won’t be getting a Battletome for a long long time. As such they’ve given them the few things they need to be fully “3.0” as the profiles and points cost were clearly planned for the new edition. It also allows the narrative players to have the updated Path to Glory rules sooner than 2 or 3 years down the road.

This is likely because Custodes and Genestealer Cults were suppose to be out before Nurgle. As such the articles were written and released in a set order. I would expect they get spoilers this week and start of next week.

Ah I thought the rumour was a Fyreslayer versus Deepkin Battlebox (which is always a new hero and old units) and then an additional 1 unit for the Slayers and 2 for the Deepkin. Although it would make sense to have maybe a generic Monster and a Hero Monster from the same kit. So two kits for each, but one gives us an extra Warscroll. I think that’s where the confusion lied was I saw people talking about different things. My bad. As to the rumours I’ve found the lore and idea of both Fyreslayers and Deepkin super cool. They have depth (hahahahaha) but are relatively untouched right now in that depth.

Don’t really have a horse in the race. But didn’t Slaanesh daemons end up being the precursor with Masque, Keeper and Fiends resculpt along with the new Contorted Epitome and Infernal Entrapures? That’s quite a larger list. Also Sisters 100% got a huge wave with their book, while Drukhari (the other half) didn’t. The Slaanesh stuff once again was also a massive wave of new options compared to Daughters. Not talking about what’s in the Battleboxes as new. But the fact the armies that come in them do not receive equal support in model releases after said box. But again maybe I’m misunderstanding what you are all talking about.

Hello fellow forum dwellers! Today I wanted to ask/discuss an issue that isn't talked about as near as much (although there is a semi recent sorta related conversation in this very forum, so kudos) as I think it needs to be. Terrain. For those who aren't aware, when 9th Ed 40K released there was a massive growing pain as people had to not only add more, better terrain to matched play level events, but also become much more familiar and comfortable with intense makeover of the terrain rules. It is widely accepted that there was a 6+ month lag before the meta really was playing on "proper" tables with enough and the right kind of terrain for 9th Ed. Even to this day there is a divide between "official" 40K tables (used at their GW Opens), ITC/ITC Player Placed, WTC/Europe and just events having enough of it in general. While we are fortunate that this isn't as much of an issue with 3.0, we also lack a really good set of terrain rules IMO. However I am a matched play "stickler" in 40K and also run a number of events locally. As such I want to use the GHB/Core Rulebook on terrain and make sure my events have the proper terrain for the game. So while this conversation will mostly follow the ideas of "Matched Play", I am always open to ideas from players of every caliber and type, especially as I myself have some house rules currently that are used locally. With that said, enough rambling and onto the meat of the post. In 3.0 we are suggested to use at least 8 pieces of terrain. Now personally I divide terrain into 4.5 categories. 1) Area Terrain - Think a terrain feature units can enter and hold. Wyldwoods (which can also block LoS), Graveyards, Ruins etc. These terrain features should be big enough to allow at least a unit of 5-10 models to move into. Giving them full use of cover on it, and around it. 2) Barricades - Mostly just fences, walls, toppled statues, large bones and the like. Basically cannot me moved "onto" but can be used to provide cover for a unit by being behind it. 3) Garrisons - Buildings, Towers, Outposts etc. These are usually of the non large or extra large variety on my tables. 4[.5]) LoS Blocking[Impassible] - This is one that should be large enough to block LoS to anything behind except maybe the largest models. Fortress walls, cliff faces, massive mountains/hills. In addition the AoS terrain movement rules are kind of bad, and as such models can move up or down terrain features, as such we have a house rule called Impassible, which for some of these to only allow models which can fly to move over them. They cannot be scaled so to speak, this is to stop models having to stop half way up, or whatever else weird jank comes from the rules and is usually reserved for large 6"+ pieces (especially ones without flat tops to stop on too). So ideally we would have 2 of each "type" on a table. But of course not every theme uses each of these as well, as such we do adapt and change as needed. Two example tables I have are; 1) Grave Town of Shyish - 2 Large Mausoleum (Garrisons), 2 Graveyard w/ small Mausoleum (Area Terrain), 2 Dead Forests (Area Terrain/Wyldwoods) and 2 Broken Fences (Barricades) 2) Wilds of Ghur - 2 Beast Skulls (Barricades, as they cannot be entered like Area Terrain), 2 Sheer Cliffs (LoS Blocking and Impassible), 2 Death Forests (Area Terrain/Wyldwoods) and 2 Hut Villages (Area Terrain) So what I am looking for are answers discussions around the following 1.) Does this mix work for you? Is there other things you as a tournament (or general Matched Play) player would want to see? 2.) How much space should terrain take on the table? 25%? 50%? More? Less? 3.) Is 8 pieces (being the actual minimum) too few? If so is that because of the average size? Would 8 be fine if they took up a certain amount of the table? Do you instead prefer 10? 12? 4.) Is LoS blocking important to you? Would you rather have all terrain be "see through"? 5.) Does the "Impassible" rule (see above) bother you? It is used to make the game cleaner in our experience, but is a house rule 6.) Are Garrisons important to you? If so what size? Beyond that there also a few terrain rules I often see totally ignored or changed for events. On a more in-depth look, especially for tournament goers I am curious about things such as 7.) Do you want the "Defender" to roll Mysterious Terrain? Do you want Mysterious Terrain at all? Would you rather Mysterious Terrain be pre-rolled and applied already for everyone to see at the table? 8.) Do you prefer terrain preset for the table? If so do you prefer it set for the entire event, or reset for each Battleplan? 9.) If not preset, is the "Attacker" placing terrain ideal for you (per the rules)? Would you prefer if the "Attacker" got to set the terrain, but only in preset locations? Such as being able to place the 8 pieces, but the pieces had to go in one of eight pre-marked locations on a map for the table/Battleplan? 10.) Are there any terrain style/rules/options you love for event tables to have? Any you utterly despise? 11.) Does the quality/amount of terrain actually matter to you at an event? It is "less" important than in 40K, and some of the tables I have seen for AoS events have been bare IMO, but is that acceptable, or even preferable, to you? So for anyone who actually got through all that and answers thank you very much. Locally Age of Sigmar events often are weird. They have a lot of house rules, crazy scoring and a ton of extra moving parts. There has been some desire for balanced more "40K like" Matched Play events. So I am very interested to hear from TOs who have had similar questions and found answers to reach out to me too. AoS still feels very young in its tournament life, and I very much am excited to watch it grow. So if you can offer any feedback (especially from a Matched Play) perspective it would be much appreciated to help grow my scene (and hopefully others)

Technically they’re just flat markers you measure form the centre of. So a 25-40mm base with a nice tombstone or death symbol is best if you want a physical representation; which some might not as they’re not actually there and thus a physical marker can get in the way of placing models. As to size if make it as I said a base and nothing more. It isn’t a terrain feature, can’t be used as one, and cannot move a terrain piece to make room as terrain features can. It will also get in the way a lot of its any real size as it’s just a marker. If you wanted to design a graveyard terrain piece I would do that as a terrain piece or even an entire table to fight over. That would look amazing and thematic.

4 for AoS, 6 for 40K. 10 total. Same as now. Seems they doubled up on Death as last year they doubled up on Destruction at the exclusion of Death.

They won’t be. And that was never the intent. The “assured printing” is a made to order offer for new product only that is limited in release and won’t be out for many months (or at all) separately. These items are all fully out and abound. The boxes are just a bundle at a better price. They were never going to be included in the Print/Made to Order. They’ll be one and done like they always were.

Just want to address something and maybe ease some fears. A few years ago (just before Covid) Games Workshop moved all “game development” to into the main studio. What this meant is that the same groups (groups, not group) make the rules for all of the games. At the same time Forgeworld was recategorized internally as the “specialist department”. This is why we haven’t seen new 40K or AoS models out of the studio. They’re responsible for the creation of MODELS for all of the non core games. This includes both Horus Heresy and The Old World. In addition Forgeworld is no longer a “resin studio”. They’re able to work with various mediums as they choose (and as directed from up top I’m sure based on the intent of the product). Many of the specialist games are now part of the main trade line; despite being modelled and created by the FW team. Gone are the days of Forgeworld being a boutique of hobbyists creating specific visions in resin at a high cost. While this may remain part of they purview, the team is now all about creating and supporting the various side projects of the Games Workshop as a whole. What this really means is the Old World rules will be created by the rules team that works for Games Workshop. The models will likely be a mixture of Plastic and Resin; unless that direction changes before Old World fully releases. They aren’t cannibilizing the AoS team, they’re not throwing AoS out the window. AoS will be as much of a focus as it is now. On another note, I feel like people are going to be really upset when The Old World launches as something that isn’t WFB. There’s a reason it has a different name. This is not a rebirth of Fantasy. It’s a new game set in the same world with some of the old factions. People expecting to walk into GW on launch (or ever…) and buy Brettonia, Tomb Kings, Cathay, Druchii and whatever else are going to be upset. I expect to see a lot of negativity towards TOW as the previews and game come more into the spot light. If you love the world and lore; it’s going to be awesome. If you are expecting a rebirth of WFB you’ll be sad.

Unless I’m blind Daemons of Khorne also aren’t there. If that’s the case then I would suspect they just omitted all the daemon boxes for whatever reason. Likely because they’re not marked with their armies name and don’t want to “confuse” new players with boxes without an army name, but then again they have Skinks and Cities so likely just a whatever reason. In my experience GW works like a machine. You can see patterns and overlaps everywhere. Space Marines and Necrons released together a couple months after the new edition. They didn’t get Combat Patrols for about 8 months. Stormcast and Orruks didn’t get Battletomes for a couple months after the edition launch. They currently don’t have Vanguard boxes. If you ignore the Space Marine supplement books, 40K got one release in the same year beyond the two starter armies. AoS is getting the same amount. This leads me to believe we won’t see a Vanguard box for any army without a 3.0 book. And we can expect the Stormcast and Orruk Vanguard box sometime between March and May.

Aren’t Combat Patrols 110 Euros? This would make them cheaper by 10 Euros.

I just reached out to my Rep at GW. He has no idea about Battleforces boxes, but if they’re coming he expects them to be announced this weekend. He was also confused how your LGS can order something they don’t have part codes for at all. Until something is actually announced and in the system it’s not really something we can order. GW asking us to order something NOW without telling us what it isn’t really how it works. Also they’re taking final numbers for the Black Templar release today and tomorrow and don’t have any time to add anything else. So my Rep is highly confused about what your stores been told. He asked me to see what the stores name is so he can reach out to that stores Rep and ask what’s going on as they aren’t in the office currently (work from home) so he wants to follow up. So if you could PM your local stores name that would be awesome.

So I feel there’s a lot of misconceptions or downright bitterness at GW about 40Ks Combat Patrols. Combat Patrols are a specific level of 40K. Either 500 Points or 25 Power Level. The boxes are all right around that with one of the builds in the box (they’re full kits so people can make more or less depending). They’re meant to be able to be picked up by two players and have a fair starter level game. Something Start Collectings have never been able to do. While there was a single one (Death Guard) that had issues. This was due to a change in the Rules for that army that’s want properly communicated early enough. The box is actually still playable, but it is sadly, the lease efficient. These boxes still have significant discounts (the average is 33%, with a few being even more). While some Start Collectings were a better monetary value, many were downright awful value and playability. Combat Patrols have been seen as a positive in most 40K circles in my experience. Even at a higher price point the discount is great and the actual balanced way for two players to start together has been a huge boon for new players. For the most part they are not good to buy several of as an army, but that was never GWs intention of Start Collectings either. So while some people may be upset that they can no longer buy most of an army through a few SC purchases; that’s just a by product of making the sets as intended. The Start Collectings range was so wildly inconsistent that theirs update was good for most, and bad for some. But is much better for new players as a whole. Ive noticed through trade that Start Collectings have been slow to restock for AoS. So while there’s no promise they’ll be discounted they’re certainly having stock issues (more than normal) right now. It’s very likely IMO that starting with Nurgle we will see “Battalion Boxes” which are around 500 points and meant to be played in whatever Battalion GW decides. This will have the Combat Patrol price tag and help new players enter into AoS with any army they want at a “balanced” level with a friend.

I mean GW has done things where the rules and what they intend are different. However I cannot see anything actually written that lays out a General isn’t a General when selected to be a General for another cause/rule. I suppose though it doesn’t actually matter in the app. You could select the Lord of Pain as “the” General; then add two additional Generals. Those Generals are able to be take the Command Trait as far as I can tell (one of them) and any Hero can take the Artifact. So it’s likely just a coding thing to make it work that way with conditional Battleline.