Il Maestro

I might need to reserve my congratulations until I see this liked by @Whitefang, otherwise it might just be a rumour still… 😉❤️

What are the FEC rumours out of curiosity? I looked back and saw a 'Whitefang reacts' post where it was intimated that FEC might be a big release, but are there any more rumours since that? Just started building recently a Mousillon-themed FEC army, so new units/models are going to be a pain to fit into my already-sorted proxy theme 😃

I don't think they got missed for the beginners guide stuff: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/26/the-beasts-of-chaos-are-ready-to-rumble-with-the-new-editions-monstrous-rampage-rules/ And they even got a new-new FAQ to change some rules for ungor raiders and dragon ogres, so I'd agree with you that they are very unlikely to get squatted. I even doubt they will get souped tbh, I think they have enough identity that they will remain their own faction and just get updated rules.

Touché 😂

Not really. Even if you have 25mm bases touching each other, the last model on each side needs to be positioned in a triangle to be within 1” of 2 models. And then the moment you take 1 casualty and remove one of those from the triangle, the new end model is only within 1” of 1 model… so coherency strikes and you remove from the chain until you’re down to 5 models. Of course you can still chain them basically 2 deep in a tight zig-zag formation, but it greatly reduces the efficiency of screens. They can still be effective, but now your screen has to be twice as large model-wise to cover about the same area.

And what’s interesting is they specified the unmodified charge roll, so no sneaky cogs/gav surecharge making them MW bombs… right?

Whilst I agree with a lot of your points, it comes back to the label - it might seem like being punctilious, but ‘matched play’ and ‘competitive play’ are not synonymous. And I think you’d find that people don’t actually use those two groups interchangeably, but rather when they’re making the distinction between the two groups are describing ‘competitive’ as those focused on winning, buying and selling armies on a whim as meta-chasing, or min-maxing unit compositions for efficiency amongst other ‘games’ concepts. Most of which can be true for any singular event/game, but it doesn’t preclude even those games from being narrative. Why should a suboptimal charge be the only way a narrative can be told? Why must an efficient list be any less narrative than a themed one? Not that you were suggesting that, as you outlined. But these seem to be the general motivating themes behind labelling someone as competitive rather than narrative. And to me, when it seems to be used as a negative labelling device, all I hear is, ‘I’m not as good at winning the game as you, so I’m taking the moral high ground of saying I didn’t want to win anyway.’

I really wish people would stop spreading the false dichotomy of ‘narrative’ and ‘competitive’ players - they are not mutually exclusive beings. There are top-level players that know more lore than most GW employees, and there are those that play only Path to Glory with friends that don’t even know their own factions history properly. Literally every army you see on the table is narrative, because it’s been made with the same book that is an entirely narrative creation. Now, that’s not to say that Tzeentch Archaon vs. Tzeentch Archaon is going to be the title of the next Black Library best-seller, but accidental match ups don’t make the people playing them any less narratively inclined. And I don’t buy that wanting to win or being specific about rules makes you less narrative either - how many of you would play chess with your brother/sister but let their pawns move like queens for narrative reasons? Wanting to play competitively and wanting to win doesn’t preclude you from being narrative. Hell, even selling your army and minimally 3-colour painting the next ‘meta’ choice doesn’t preclude you from being narrative. Would you ever make the distinction between a guy that plays football in the park every other week with his mates and Cristiano Ronaldo as the ‘enthusiast’ vs. ‘competitive’ player because he’s played for a bunch of different elite teams? Of course not, he’s just arguably the best in the world, and the bloke down at the park isn’t. To me, the continued assertion that you must identify as either a ‘narrative’ or ‘competitive’ gamer just feels like a group of players trying to create a pejorative label for those that like to be their very best in order to excuse their own lack of understanding and expertise of the game. And, ironically, those same ‘competitive’ gamers would more than likely bend over backwards to help you understand and learn the game better so that we could all improve together. Not a rumour, just my 2 cents worth on choosing words correctly, because even accidental labels have meaning.

‘We’ve been tinkering with the Rumour Engine in a way that would make a Big Mek or Cogsmith proud.’ Surely this is a sign of a dwarf-associated release? And that ankle joint makes it look like metal ball and socket sort of arrangement, so my money is on a robot golem of some sort

In the spoilers section, it's been talked about all morning. One of the members got sent a photo of the last page with all the point values and is relaying them by text, as he's been asked not to send the picture out. And then he's been told as well about the new kroak revival rule.

As frustrating as this seemingly rushed release schedule might be, I think the new 40K article is quite telling - the fact that 2 new 40K codexes are so delayed that they were meant to drop before the points update in a week but won’t be ready until later this year is a really big setback for GW. Makes me appreciate how royally stuffed up their whole schedule must be, so I’m very happy that they are prioritising 3.0 and working hard to get it out in its fullest version to us ☺️

Wow! Looking forward to seeing it!

Where did you find this??

I don't think the issue is paying for his points and then not using him in combat, it's the ability to avoid any unwanted fights that will make it a very powerful rule. Think of it this way - seeing as you can now just teleport out of combat before you are struck in your opponent's turn (unless they have a 'start of combat phase' ability too), you can effectively choose how and when to fight every time! You can rush well within the danger zone of multiple units because you 'really' want to get the charge off onto specific unit X. If you get it, you maul your juicy target and are happy. If you don't though, or even if you do, the return counter-charge is obsolete, as you can just teleport away. And, given the 'restrictions' regarding teleporting, you will likely be able to set up a very beneficial charge for your next combat phase. You are effectively giving yourself the ability to get a combat character wherever you want each turn. Yes, there is shooting counter-play. There always is. But now you're forcing choices on your opponent which might not be the ones they want to make. I think it has the potential to be quite powerful.

Did someone say ‘Witcher’? Maybe I’ll get onto finishing my Velen Woods Sylvaneth force...