The Rumour Thread

[Clan's Cynic]

1 hour ago, Lich King said:

Love using AOS models for Age of Fantasy. Are they going to show us a road map of what to expect in coming months ? I thought they started doing that some time ago …

Roadmap I reckon will come whenever they 'reveal' the rest of the Stormcast/Skaven stuff coming, including their Battletomes. That's what happened for 40k anyway, and I think AoS 3.0? 

[Ejecutor]

43 minutes ago, Danaork said:

Abraxia warscroll leak ?

Tomorrow or Thursday, I think.

[Marcvs]

2 hours ago, Beliman said:

The Quick Reference sheet says that Passive abilities are always active unless they have a condition

Double checking the Quick Reference, the All out attack is not even listed under the fight phase (but mentioned as an "attacking ability") so I am more and more convinced that Yndrasta ability also works on shooting

[Beliman]

12 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

Double checking the Quick Reference, the All out attack is not even listed under the fight phase (but mentioned as an "attacking ability") so I am more and more convinced that Yndrasta ability also works on shooting

Me too. And the icons/colours are just a fast-check QoL than a core rule.

[Ragest]

That red banner is just pretty confusing.

[Ejecutor]

We will get used to it, as always.

[Son Of Morghur]

2 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

B- Krondys being 5 means that all monsters will be 5. so this is simply universalizing infantry/elites/monsters/heroes.

Yes, I understand that. But at the same time, it is always kinda ridiculous, when you have (lorewise) Giant Models  (looking at you Krondys and Archaon) which cost nearly half an army or more, who are unable to hold objectives against endless hordes (Rats or Zombies) and who are also not able to fight them off of the objective. It does not feel fluffy nor powerful, just ridiculous.

 

2 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

C- you cannot even say this yet?

That's why I said may. I would like a well rounded game with some fluffy rules but at least some form good balance. Only if you have both the game is fun. Fluffy does not mean that it will be balanced, if you take my example above, the rules can be as fluffy as you desire, but the game flow (at least for me) will be ruined and it will just feel off because "insert big model here" will feel absolutely not powerful (and I or my opponent paid a lot of points for her/his model) and it will not feel balanced either.

Don't get me wrong, I do not mean that I want an unfluffy but balanced and streamlined game, I would even dare to say, that I prefer some fluffy rules over balance some time, but please let it be fun! I love the artillery and scatter dice of Warhammer Fantasy and OW and it is one of the things I miss the most in aos (and the explosion and fire gauges, these added so much more to the game). On the other hand, these core game components (like objective marking) are a really essential part of how the game plays and it will shape a lot of the mechanics, because in the end, it's how you win games! The army rules (the "shell" of the game) are looking really great, I just fear that streamlining of rules and some old problems are going to get ported over into the new edition. And I don't want these core rules disrupt the great fluffy army rules (we don't have enough information about their balancing anyway)!

Edited May 21 by Son Of Morghur

[Tonhel]

1 hour ago, Mutton said:

We do not want to go back to every army having like 9 battle traits to remember. I'm super happy they're cutting it lean while retaining narrative themes. Their Finest Hour is awesome.

We = I

I liked the diverse CoS different cities, Everything so far seems way to streamlined. Per army only 4 Battle formations, only 3 spells per lore, only 3 Heroic traits, only 3 artefacts of power. I really hope this is because of the index approach and that battletomes will add a lot more battle formations, heroic traits, artefact of power...

[PJetski]

6 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

Per army only 4 Battle formations

In the indexes, yes

There will probably be more in the battletomes

[Beliman]

Do we have any information to how we can take more than one artifact or heroic trait?

[Son Of Morghur]

I would like a mix between the two. Not too much fluff, but not too much of a streamlining. I couldn't get myself to play 9th edition of 40k because the tyranid codex was REALLY hard to get around and to digest (pun not intended). I mean, half of the codex were just special rules for different iterations of my army. Just getting started and even trying to build an army that would do well against different armies is really hard.

 

I really like Warhammer Fantasy and Old World, but i can understand how these can be "too fluffy" for some. GW seems to going into the directions of Specialist Games=Fluffy and harder (although I have no idea how it is in HH, I have no interest in it) and more easy to play for aos and 40k.

 

I still would like a bit more complexity and customization in aos, but maybe just a little bit more as in 3rd and not as much as in (and I understand and respect the decision of GW not wanting to make it as expanded as Fantasy and Old World).

[Mutton]

8 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

I liked the diverse CoS different cities, Everything so far seems way to streamlined. Per army only 4 Battle formations, only 3 spells per lore, only 3 Heroic traits, only 3 artefacts of power. I really hope this is because of the index approach and that battletomes will add a lot more battle formations, heroic traits, artefact of power...

The index packs are the foundations for each army. Battletomes will definitely offer more options for traits, artifacts, etc. In proper game design, you want to start with a simple, solid foundation before you begin adding layers of complexity.

[CommissarRotke]

2 hours ago, Mcthew said:

Would we call this fluffy? Not so sure. Current SCE battle traits number 6. We get 4 here and one of these has been stolen from Heroic Actions.

They look a bit meh, to be honest. Not lore-meh, just, well, vanilla. Not hugely exciting. But hey that's what the command traits and artefacts should bring, right? Some fun? Some variety? Yay! Show me that customization, baby, like the models. You know where they're not mono-pose.

Oh. Right...

I mean i thought the whole point of an index edition was to start everyone off fairly vanilla, then get more exciting with the Battletomes?

huge agree with the monopose. liberators are slightly better than vindictors, and at least the Reclusians aren't understrength, but still a bit of a miss. i would love to see my favorite weapon (spear) in a multipart SCE kit.

[CommissarRotke]

2 hours ago, Mutton said:

We do not want to go back to every army having like 9 battle traits to remember. I'm super happy they're cutting it lean while retaining narrative themes. Their Finest Hour is awesome.

and only 3 of them were good or useful...

[CommissarRotke]

1 hour ago, Son Of Morghur said:

Yes, I understand that. But at the same time, it is always kinda ridiculous, when you have (lorewise) Giant Models  (looking at you Krondys and Archaon) which cost nearly half an army or more, who are unable to hold objectives against endless hordes (Rats or Zombies) and who are also not able to fight them off of the objective. It does not feel fluffy nor powerful, just ridiculous.

Ah I misunderstood, I thought you meant it was too much. I am thinking they balanced 5 around the fact that your monster will likely kill at least 5-10 of a 10-20 model unit.

59 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

I liked the diverse CoS different cities, Everything so far seems way to streamlined. Per army only 4 Battle formations, only 3 spells per lore, only 3 Heroic traits, only 3 artefacts of power. I really hope this is because of the index approach and that battletomes will add a lot more battle formations, heroic traits, artefact of power...

you can still have diverse COS cities, likely more with the full tome. but having 9 unique traits while half of them suck means you're still painting one way then picking different rules. 4e is simply cutting out that awkward part and letting your chosen city have actually useful rules/traits.

[pnkdth]

9 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

you can still have diverse COS cities, likely more with the full tome. but having 9 unique traits while half of them suck means you're still painting one way then picking different rules. 4e is simply cutting out that awkward part and letting your chosen city have actually useful rules/traits.

It hurts themed lists though. Not to mention longevity through meta changes (like during GHBs) if optimisation is the name of the game. Competitive lists might look very much alike but let's not forget all those who aren't posting their lists and enjoying some friendlies where netting a 5-0 doesn't even enter into the equation. 

[CommissarRotke]

@Garrac @Skreech Verminking Skaven painting video dropped today?!?

 

[CommissarRotke]

Just now, pnkdth said:

It hurts themed lists though. Not to mention longevity through meta changes (like during GHBs) if optimisation is the name of the game. Competitive lists might look very much alike but let's not forget all those who aren't posting their lists and enjoying some friendlies where netting a 5-0 doesn't even enter into the equation. 

How does it hurt themed lists though? The army themeing, from the previews I've read so far, will come from which regiments (hero+units) you pick for your army. Then you can pick your traits and formations based around your regiments' theme. Those can be as tied to your color scheme as you want now, because subfactions are no longer rules-specific.

I said it earlier before here, but there's no reason for Greywater Fastness to not have some elite cavalry right? So if you want to paint a Greywater army that focuses on cavalry and skirmishers instead of artillery and gunners, you can now pick and choose which traits and formations that are useful to cavalry. It is then a Greywater Fastness army. Period. No caveats. No asterisks.

I just don't see how this is worse than having to say "okay I painted everything Greywater Fastness but I'm actually using Excelsis' rules" because a completely different subfaction has the actual rules you want to play with.

[JackStreicher]

tw GW is actively advertising now. I've just received an AD-Video on YT for #NewAoS it was the launch trailer of the woman turning reclusion.

[Ejecutor]

15 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

@Garrac @Skreech Verminking Skaven painting video dropped today?!?

 

Uhh. Promising. Little delay between the Liberator and the Clan Rats one. Maybe we have more coming!

[Satyrical Sophist]

Having relatively few, but impactful rules is probably the sweet spot for me. The army I've been playing the most recently is Nurgle.

They have...

Disease.

Cycle of Corruption.

Healing and ward. 

Summoning. 

Some of those might be tied up in other things, the healing also has an additional thing with locus of fecundity which I don't think I have ever used, either due to not having, or missing that it's a thing.

Disease is hugely impactful and meaningful, it effects a lot and is really thematic.

Summoning is...kind of there? It feels like it more or less translates into getting you a battle tactic, and if you are doing well, clowning on people. I kind of want summoning replacing just in general. I love the theme, but every faction with it just dances on the ineffective/problem line. I personally kind of think summoning should be paid for in points, but discounted. You can summon in more unite, but they are only available from turn X onwards. Or just something that means you aren't incentivised to bring a stupid amount of models with you. 

Healing and ward should just be on the war scrolls.

The cycle of Corruption is the worst for me. Some of the effects are INSANE, others do nothing. It puts a lot on one dice roll. Its the kind of thing that they could have amazing, but as an also-ran it's terrible. 

 

[Tonhel]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

In the indexes, yes

There will probably be more in the battletomes

Yes, this is what I hope and hopefully the BTs are released at a good rate. 

1 hour ago, Mutton said:

The index packs are the foundations for each army. Battletomes will definitely offer more options for traits, artifacts, etc. In proper game design, you want to start with a simple, solid foundation before you begin adding layers of complexity.

Yes, which is all good, but it also means knowing GW that there will be a huge difference between the armies that got a BT and the ones that are still waiting for one. GW isn't known for consistency during an edition.

43 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

and only 3 of them were good or useful...

 

38 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

Ah I misunderstood, I thought you meant it was too much. I am thinking they balanced 5 around the fact that your monster will likely kill at least 5-10 of a 10-20 model unit.

you can still have diverse COS cities, likely more with the full tome. but having 9 unique traits while half of them suck means you're still painting one way then picking different rules. 4e is simply cutting out that awkward part and letting your chosen city have actually useful rules/traits.

Which ones? I never build my armies for the optimal build, I build my armies in a way I like them. If this result is not the best build so be it, so long as I have choices/options or atleast the illusion of choice. When I read 4 battle formations, only 3 spells per lore, only 3 heroic traits and etc.. Not enough at all. I can swallow it for now as it indeed are indexes, but we will see with the BT.

I fear CoS will be quite boring in options until they get their Battletome. What with the command traits for the duardin, Aelves? Will there be one for human, duardin, Aelf? Or will there no race specific heroic traits anymore? Or will there be only heroic traits for humans, what with only 3 artefacts of power.

I don't believe the barren indexes are for balancing at all. They could easly added more stuff to the indexes, but when they do that they can't ask almost 50 euro or maybe more with the price increase for the new BTs. 

Edited May 21 by Tonhel

[Tonhel]

Is it possible that you can only take one heroic trait and artefact of power per army?

I am listening to the lastest Honest Wargamer video about the Stormcast preview from today and it seems to me that this is the case. I hope not, as that is even more a step back for customization than it was with AoS 3rd.

[novakai]

And there always a battletome that is release during the last 3 months of an edition too. Some unlucky armies are going to be playing index rules for most of the next three years sadly.

 

[pnkdth]

34 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

How does it hurt themed lists though? The army themeing, from the previews I've read so far, will come from which regiments (hero+units) you pick for your army. Then you can pick your traits and formations based around your regiments' theme. Those can be as tied to your color scheme as you want now, because subfactions are no longer rules-specific.

I said it earlier before here, but there's no reason for Greywater Fastness to not have some elite cavalry right? So if you want to paint a Greywater army that focuses on cavalry and skirmishers instead of artillery and gunners, you can now pick and choose which traits and formations that are useful to cavalry. It is then a Greywater Fastness army. Period. No caveats. No asterisks.

I just don't see how this is worse than having to say "okay I painted everything Greywater Fastness but I'm actually using Excelsis' rules" because a completely different subfaction has the actual rules you want to play with.

That's a workable part of it. However, if there's a very limited amount of artefacts/traits/spells it could quickly turn into vanilla. Nothing inherently wrong with vanilla, taste's fine, but it is just fine and to get the most of it you'd want some sprinkles or other stuff to bring in some additional flavour. 

Then again, maybe it is executed in a manner which brings out some cool customisation.