General Chat Thread

[Ejecutor]

The Seven Best Black Library Audiobooks to Build Skaventide To - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com)

Interesting. Those books that they think are better to be ready for take Skaventide.

Edited Monday at 02:41 PM by Ejecutor

[CommissarRotke]

duplicate

 

Edited Monday at 06:24 PM by CommissarRotke

[CommissarRotke]

On 6/19/2024 at 6:39 PM, Neverchosen said:

I noticed in the Batrep they posted that they were fairly consistent in using non-binary pronouns for the Lord-Veritant which is one of the cooler models in the set. I know this might be old news for many but I was happily surprised to hear this so consistently as they seemed to use masculine pronouns for all the other individual units on the board. I think this is particularly noteworthy in the wake of the Sylas Beastbane controversy. 

I guess that means we'll get some names for heroes!! That's also exciting hoping Skaven get named as well

it's nice to have some names for generic character models.

 

[Hollow]

1 minute ago, CommissarRotke said:

it's nice to have some names for generic character models.

I like the odd special character, but generally speaking, I prefer generic hero kits. 

[MitGas]

1 hour ago, woolf said:

Ah brilliant, there are several other magic-leaning armies you could dabble with, some of them even feature guys in armour.. with shields..  and and spears!

[MitGas]

50 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Some even have fancy helmets!

You‘ve perverted a good thing - it was clear as day woolf was talking about Seraphon and you just had to make it all about Luuumineth! Any chance you work for GW? 

 

See, some if them do have armor!

[ScionOfOssia]

12 minutes ago, MitGas said:

You‘ve perverted a good thing - it was clear as day woolf was talking about Seraphon and you just had to make it all about Luuumineth! Any chance you work for GW? 

 

See, some if them do have armor!

No you fool, clearly they meant the Ossiarchs! Observe the helmets-

As we all know, the bigger the hat, the more important the wearer, and what is a helmet if not a particularly sturdy hat? 

[woolf]

11 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:

As we all know, the bigger the hat, the more important the wearer, and what is a helmet if not a particularly sturdy hat? 

This is true, in particular in magic, big helmet seems to correlate with big magic 🤔 suppose they hide big brains!

[woolf]

2 hours ago, Ejecutor said:

The Seven Best Black Library Audiobooks to Build Skaventide To - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com)

Interesting. Those books that they think are better to be ready for take Skaventide.

Has anyone listened to any of these and can provide a candid view?

[Sahrial]

Yknow, people over on rumor were discussing the de-hype a couple pages ago, and I feel it. Felt like it was better posted over here, though.

Ive been trying so hard to stay hyped for this release, but its really been an uphill battle.

They dropped BoC which I always loved the aesthetic of, and I have local people who had half their Stormcast army tagged for shelving soon. But I don’t play SCE and I’d already sold my BoC army because I needed the cash and wasn’t playing it as much as my main two armies.

The war game is leaning more to game than war, which I know sounds like a nonsense phrase, and I told myself that’s fine it can still be fun, I have Heresy for my crunchy war game and don’t necessarily want another one that involved anyway. I like a happy middle.

the Ogor preview took some serious wind out of my sails but I told myself “hey we just saw the barest preview, and we’ve always been rules light and the blizzard thing does look cool”

And the other previews came out and most of those had a lot of cool stuff but nothing that really sucked me in, except kruleboyz a little bit.

then I talked to my friends who have AoS armies and a lot of them are “I’ll try spearhead but I don’t think I’ll get into the whole game”. I’d been trying hard to get some traction with my local community, so that sucked pretty hard ngl, but hey I can’t tell people they should spend time and money on a product and system I’m myself feeling doubt about.

getting the notice today that they’re making a new AoS app instead of updating the existing one honestly fills me with bad feels, because our current app is pretty great and I know the new one will have a paywall like the 40K app, which I hate.

i dunno. I want to be excited and it’s like everything is working to make it feel sucky. I don’t even know when or if I’ll get games in after launch.

[Ejecutor]

6 minutes ago, Sahrial said:

Yknow, people over on rumor were discussing the de-hype a couple pages ago, and I feel it. Felt like it was better posted over here, though.

Ive been trying so hard to stay hyped for this release, but its really been an uphill battle.

They dropped BoC which I always loved the aesthetic of, and I have local people who had half their Stormcast army tagged for shelving soon. But I don’t play SCE and I’d already sold my BoC army because I needed the cash and wasn’t playing it as much as my main two armies.

The war game is leaning more to game than war, which I know sounds like a nonsense phrase, and I told myself that’s fine it can still be fun, I have Heresy for my crunchy war game and don’t necessarily want another one that involved anyway. I like a happy middle.

the Ogor preview took some serious wind out of my sails but I told myself “hey we just saw the barest preview, and we’ve always been rules light and the blizzard thing does look cool”

And the other previews came out and most of those had a lot of cool stuff but nothing that really sucked me in, except kruleboyz a little bit.

then I talked to my friends who have AoS armies and a lot of them are “I’ll try spearhead but I don’t think I’ll get into the whole game”. I’d been trying hard to get some traction with my local community, so that sucked pretty hard ngl, but hey I can’t tell people they should spend time and money on a product and system I’m myself feeling doubt about.

getting the notice today that they’re making a new AoS app instead of updating the existing one honestly fills me with bad feels, because our current app is pretty great and I know the new one will have a paywall like the 40K app, which I hate.

i dunno. I want to be excited and it’s like everything is working to make it feel sucky. I don’t even know when or if I’ll get games in after launch.

Updating the current app was not viable. They even have the current app and the 2nd edition one being both editions way more compatible, so it was obvious that a new edition with a game breaker change would have its own new app. Will it be locked behind a pay wall? Very likely, but at least that paywall can be covered with W`, you can enjoy content and sell the free mini.

[Arzalyn]

19 minutes ago, Sahrial said:

Yknow, people over on rumor were discussing the de-hype a couple pages ago, and I feel it. Felt like it was better posted over here, though.

Ive been trying so hard to stay hyped for this release, but its really been an uphill battle.

I'm still pretty hyped for the edition, but I'm getting really tired of they drip feeding us information. I just want to see the index and see how much my armies will change, if what I have is still enough to play and things like that...

[CommissarRotke]

35 minutes ago, Sahrial said:

The war game is leaning more to game than war, which I know sounds like a nonsense phrase, and I told myself that’s fine it can still be fun, I have Heresy for my crunchy war game and don’t necessarily want another one that involved anyway. I like a happy middle.

Which way are people using this phrase?

It sounds like a nonsense phrase to me because "War" is not solely about killing more than your enemy. It has always, always been about logistics and economics over casualties. RTS video games die quickly if their only/main Victory Condition is killing. Heck even WHFB got rote when you realized most games came down to wiping the board first. I will never understand this argument against wargaming having more objective based plans than killing.

If people are using it to mean "less customizations/listbuilding" it still doesn't make sense to me. Plenty of "games" are extremely complex, some even jokingly referred to as "spreadsheet games."

[Hollow]

I think some people would be best served (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) by stepping back from following the system so intently. Put it on the back burner and do something else for a bit. Warhammer is a marathon, not a sprint. Over the last 25+ years my interest has waxed and waned, it's only natural. There's lots of cool stuff out there! 

Edited Monday at 06:39 PM by Hollow

[PraetorDragoon]

1 hour ago, Sahrial said:

Yknow, people over on rumor were discussing the de-hype a couple pages ago, and I feel it. Felt like it was better posted over here, though.

Ive been trying so hard to stay hyped for this release, but its really been an uphill battle.

They dropped BoC which I always loved the aesthetic of, and I have local people who had half their Stormcast army tagged for shelving soon. But I don’t play SCE and I’d already sold my BoC army because I needed the cash and wasn’t playing it as much as my main two armies.

The war game is leaning more to game than war, which I know sounds like a nonsense phrase, and I told myself that’s fine it can still be fun, I have Heresy for my crunchy war game and don’t necessarily want another one that involved anyway. I like a happy middle.

the Ogor preview took some serious wind out of my sails but I told myself “hey we just saw the barest preview, and we’ve always been rules light and the blizzard thing does look cool”

And the other previews came out and most of those had a lot of cool stuff but nothing that really sucked me in, except kruleboyz a little bit.

then I talked to my friends who have AoS armies and a lot of them are “I’ll try spearhead but I don’t think I’ll get into the whole game”. I’d been trying hard to get some traction with my local community, so that sucked pretty hard ngl, but hey I can’t tell people they should spend time and money on a product and system I’m myself feeling doubt about.

getting the notice today that they’re making a new AoS app instead of updating the existing one honestly fills me with bad feels, because our current app is pretty great and I know the new one will have a paywall like the 40K app, which I hate.

i dunno. I want to be excited and it’s like everything is working to make it feel sucky. I don’t even know when or if I’ll get games in after launch.

So, its fine to not be excited. Its also fine to skip out of an edition. Maybe stick to lore or just the minis for a while.

[The Red King]

1 hour ago, Sahrial said:

Yknow, people over on rumor were discussing the de-hype a couple pages ago, and I feel it. Felt like it was better posted over here, though.

Ive been trying so hard to stay hyped for this release, but its really been an uphill battle.

They dropped BoC which I always loved the aesthetic of, and I have local people who had half their Stormcast army tagged for shelving soon. But I don’t play SCE and I’d already sold my BoC army because I needed the cash and wasn’t playing it as much as my main two armies.

The war game is leaning more to game than war, which I know sounds like a nonsense phrase, and I told myself that’s fine it can still be fun, I have Heresy for my crunchy war game and don’t necessarily want another one that involved anyway. I like a happy middle.

the Ogor preview took some serious wind out of my sails but I told myself “hey we just saw the barest preview, and we’ve always been rules light and the blizzard thing does look cool”

And the other previews came out and most of those had a lot of cool stuff but nothing that really sucked me in, except kruleboyz a little bit.

then I talked to my friends who have AoS armies and a lot of them are “I’ll try spearhead but I don’t think I’ll get into the whole game”. I’d been trying hard to get some traction with my local community, so that sucked pretty hard ngl, but hey I can’t tell people they should spend time and money on a product and system I’m myself feeling doubt about.

getting the notice today that they’re making a new AoS app instead of updating the existing one honestly fills me with bad feels, because our current app is pretty great and I know the new one will have a paywall like the 40K app, which I hate.

i dunno. I want to be excited and it’s like everything is working to make it feel sucky. I don’t even know when or if I’ll get games in after launch.

Yeah I've got nothing left after BoC. I may keep playing with proxies or with my "pity rules" till 2025 but I just don't care anymore. 

 

I was reading the leaked lore and caught myself thinking "oh boy I wonder if maybe they'll say something about my army!" Before remembering.

I'll keep my beasts, sell off my old skaven and probably never buy anything from GW again. Can't even get excited for spearhead.

[woolf]

1 hour ago, Sahrial said:

Ive been trying so hard to stay hyped for this release, but its really been an uphill battle.

Yeah I think its tbh partly because how long they string it out, 3rd has essentially been dead since 4th info started to come out (exaggerated by how large the change is). But then the real content, playing the game, having access to the info you need to plan lists and build towards your next hobby project etc

There is also ofc a sense of loss for things gone but I think that will fade for sure and as long as you can get some action going in a gaming group the hype will build back hopefully spearhead will help a bit, I'm def going to try it for "recruiting"

[Tonhel]

1 hour ago, CommissarRotke said:

Which way are people using this phrase?

It sounds like a nonsense phrase to me because "War" is not solely about killing more than your enemy. It has always, always been about logistics and economics over casualties. RTS video games die quickly if their only/main Victory Condition is killing. Heck even WHFB got rote when you realized most games came down to wiping the board first. I will never understand this argument against wargaming having more objective based plans than killing.

If people are using it to mean "less customizations/listbuilding" it still doesn't make sense to me. Plenty of "games" are extremely complex, some even jokingly referred to as "spreadsheet games."

Rob from the Honest Wargamer sees AoS more as a game than a tabletop wargame. He tells more about it than simply stating that AoS is more of a game. Infact he mentions it regulary in his vids.

Anyway I just think AoS 4 would even be better if there was somekind of victory point system for destroying units. So you don't have to be so focused on those Battle Tactics, which is sometimes very immersion breaking. Even taking objectives feels sometimes against the flow of the battle.

Executing a BT of scoring points through objectives should still be the way to get the most victory points. But destroying units should mean something.

Maybe it's because I am mostly focused on wiping out my friends army, which ofcourse doesn't win you the game. But it is satisfying.  

Edited Monday at 08:30 PM by Tonhel

[Ragest]

I can understand the build up hype of a faction focus each day, but now they are over, wtf are you, gw, waiting for?

They have not even released a clean pdf version of the core rules. C'mon.

[ScionOfOssia]

1 hour ago, Tonhel said:

But destroying units should mean something

It does, though not in points- It inhibits their gameplan (To varying degrees based on faction and unit), progresses yours, and the assassination of a hero can cause massive disruption of your opponent’s efforts, particularly for Death and certain Destruction factions. 

[Grimrock]

3 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

Which way are people using this phrase?

It sounds like a nonsense phrase to me because "War" is not solely about killing more than your enemy. It has always, always been about logistics and economics over casualties. RTS video games die quickly if their only/main Victory Condition is killing. Heck even WHFB got rote when you realized most games came down to wiping the board first. I will never understand this argument against wargaming having more objective based plans than killing.

If people are using it to mean "less customizations/listbuilding" it still doesn't make sense to me. Plenty of "games" are extremely complex, some even jokingly referred to as "spreadsheet games."

I've gotten the feeling AoS 4 is more 'gamey' but it's hard to describe. Just an impression that it's more... Artificial? Like before the rules existed as a way to portray a narrative. They were infused top to bottom with Warhammer. Now they seem to exist as a way to play a game first and foremost and any narrative or theme comes as a secondary byproduct.To me the biggest stand out is the 'everything is an ability'. It's logical and makes sense to standardize everything, but it feels incredibly sterile. I guess they also seem more 'object oriented', like a programmer wrote the rules.

Like I said it's hard to explain, but just to try to give an example. With ogres in the lore they're always hungry, so the rules used to give them 2 unique states: eating or hungry. When they were in combat they were eating, otherwise they were hungry. These states applied bonuses, hungry meant +2 to movement and eating meant +2 to bravery. Now you have two abilities, one a Passive, add 2 to run if you haven't used feast on flesh yet, and one 'Once per battle (army), End of Any Turn' where you can inflict mortal wounds and heal and then lose the passive. So the rules are clear and consistent with other books, but you lose the story of 'Hungry' and 'Eating' by not having a rule defining a custom state that no one else had. Or their old ogre charge where having more models or big monsters made it more likely you caused mortal wounds. Now it's just a flat shot at d3 mortals, the same no matter what. It's crisp, clear, and utterly detached from the lore of the faction. It doesn't feel like a mountain of hungry monsters plowing through an opponent, it feels like a cheap game mechanic to improve their attrition capabilities. 

In the end I don't know if it's better or worse for the game. Certainly making things clear and consistent makes things more playable and approachable which is great, but to an extent it also loses flavour and immersion. Maybe it'll be an absolute joy to play, maybe not. We'll see how it goes in a few weeks. 

[ScionOfOssia]

1 hour ago, Grimrock said:

I've gotten the feeling AoS 4 is more 'gamey' but it's hard to describe. Just an impression that it's more... Artificial? Like before the rules existed as a way to portray a narrative. They were infused top to bottom with Warhammer. Now they seem to exist as a way to play a game first and foremost and any narrative or theme comes as a secondary byproduct.To me the biggest stand out is the 'everything is an ability'. It's logical and makes sense to standardize everything, but it feels incredibly sterile. I guess they also seem more 'object oriented', like a programmer wrote the rules.

Like I said it's hard to explain, but just to try to give an example. With ogres in the lore they're always hungry, so the rules used to give them 2 unique states: eating or hungry. When they were in combat they were eating, otherwise they were hungry. These states applied bonuses, hungry meant +2 to movement and eating meant +2 to bravery. Now you have two abilities, one a Passive, add 2 to run if you haven't used feast on flesh yet, and one 'Once per battle (army), End of Any Turn' where you can inflict mortal wounds and heal and then lose the passive. So the rules are clear and consistent with other books, but you lose the story of 'Hungry' and 'Eating' by not having a rule defining a custom state that no one else had. Or their old ogre charge where having more models or big monsters made it more likely you caused mortal wounds. Now it's just a flat shot at d3 mortals, the same no matter what. It's crisp, clear, and utterly detached from the lore of the faction. It doesn't feel like a mountain of hungry monsters plowing through an opponent, it feels like a cheap game mechanic to improve their attrition capabilities. 

In the end I don't know if it's better or worse for the game. Certainly making things clear and consistent makes things more playable and approachable which is great, but to an extent it also loses flavour and immersion. Maybe it'll be an absolute joy to play, maybe not. We'll see how it goes in a few weeks. 

You also have to consider that the more sources of Mortal Wounds available, the fewer actually worthwhile units there are- Why bring a unit without a ward if it’s just going to get trampled to death before it can actually do anything? Why bring an elite option when the cheaper option matters less if it dies without achieving much? And that goes both ways, an unstoppable tide of Ogors sounds great to play but miserable to play against, just like how Crematorians at the dawn of OBR 3.0 were completely lore accurate and flavorful but excruciatingly miserable to play against. 

Flavor is fun and good, but it doesn’t help to be flavorful if nobody will play against you or the only lists you see tend to have fairly obvious trends. 

[Grimrock]

45 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:

You also have to consider that the more sources of Mortal Wounds available, the fewer actually worthwhile units there are- Why bring a unit without a ward if it’s just going to get trampled to death before it can actually do anything? Why bring an elite option when the cheaper option matters less if it dies without achieving much? And that goes both ways, an unstoppable tide of Ogors sounds great to play but miserable to play against, just like how Crematorians at the dawn of OBR 3.0 were completely lore accurate and flavorful but excruciatingly miserable to play against. 

Flavor is fun and good, but it doesn’t help to be flavorful if nobody will play against you or the only lists you see tend to have fairly obvious trends. 

Well that's kind of the point really, they seem to be sacrificing lore and flavor in favour of making a crisp clean game. Certainly if the changes bring about a tighter balance then that would be a huge plus, but GW has never been able to balance their games correctly so it remains to be seen if this will be the miracle touch or not. Personally it feels like a bit of an over correction and we're swinging too far in the other direction, but we'll see how it all shakes out. 

Edit: I will say this though, the base that these rules provide does seem leagues better than the base that we had in first edition. If this edition proves to be too bland then I'm positive that they'll be able to build on it going forwards and re-introduce all the fun jank and theme that they've cut out. Even if I don't like 4th edition there's a really good chance that they'll be able to build it up again in 5th or even 6th. 

Edited Tuesday at 02:27 AM by Grimrock

[ScionOfOssia]

14 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Well that's kind of the point really, they seem to be sacrificing lore and flavor in favour of making a crisp clean game. Certainly if the changes bring about a tighter balance then that would be a huge plus, but GW has never been able to balance their games correctly so it remains to be seen if this will be the miracle touch or not. Personally it feels like a bit of an over correction and we're swinging too far in the other direction, but we'll see how it all shakes out. 

Edit: I will say this though, the base that these rules provide does seem leagues better than the base that we had in first edition. If this edition proves to be too bland then I'm positive that they'll be able to build on it going forwards and re-introduce all the fun jank and theme that they've cut out. Even if I don't like 4th edition there's a really good chance that they'll be able to build it up again in 5th or even 6th. 

Yeah, the base is definitely solid. Now we have to wait and see if they’ll expand their USRs and keep Mortal Wounds and Wards to a reasonable amount instead of “Oops! All Mortal Wounds” like the Lumineth had previously. They’ve already got a good base for a few factions and only two or three I’d say need major alterations (Slaanesh, Ogors [If Hungry/Full don’t actually cause units to do something different which it probably does], and Tzeentch [Unless Burning can be applied in more ways]). 

[woolf]

4 hours ago, Grimrock said:

.To me the biggest stand out is the 'everything is an ability'. It's logical and makes sense to standardize everything, but it feels incredibly sterile. I guess they also seem more 'object oriented', like a programmer wrote the rules.

I think you are on to it with this, the ability-language makes it feel a bit more superficial since eg moving or figthing isn't what you normally would associate with the word "ability", it's only so in a very technical way. On other hand as ppl have pointed out the game system is way more cleaner this way which might very well be worth it for the overall game experience and allow them to build out rules in a more coherent way going forward, easier for us to remember rules, less looking up etc.

The second thing that makes it more game than war imo is clearly battletactics, in particular as they are in many case more hoops to get through as opposed to actions that logically progress towards winning a battle, eg move units out to stand on two flanks.. it just becomes something you need to do to get "points", while it makes zero tactical sense from a "war" point of view.

The third thing is perhaps the structure of the game itself, its been on round bases for a while which feels a bit more skirmish compared to rank and file, perhaps the release of TOW creating a contrast that now spotlight AOS to feel a bit less warlike. Here tho I don't think it's an issue with 4.0 vs 3.0, rather the opposite actually as tighter coherency and larger figth range should make units feel more like blocks.