Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't mean to be argumentative but when I read the Combat Phase description in the rules it seems to definitively state that units within 3" get to make attacks with any and all melee weapons. Since every melee weapon can be used within 3" it seems like a melee range stat is irrelevant.

Units with models within 3" get to make attacks... but if you check the rules for Attacking, each individual model checks range against their target.

So being within 3" allows the unit to fight... but each individual model needs to have an enemy unit in range of their weapon in order to attack.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?

Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..

Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.

Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.

Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.

Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?

I think within 3" is is the range which you are "in combat", but the rules for attacking also state that you have to be within the listed range of the weapon in order to make an attack.

I don't mean to be argumentative but when I read the Combat Phase description in the rules it seems to definitively state that units within 3" get to make attacks with any and all melee weapons. Since every melee weapon can be used within 3" it seems like a melee range stat is irrelevant.

There seems to be two qualifiers that need to be met to make a melee attack:

-Be within 3", which allows you to make the pile in move.
- After the pile in move, be within the melee range of the equipped weapon.

While being within the 3 inches lets you "attack", we see that the actual attack is split up into two parts. Piling in, which requires the 3" range (it even says this lets you move in closer to be able to make an attack), and the actual melee attack, which uses the range stat of the weapon.

Edit: spelling!

Prestor Jon wrote:I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.

The rules that have been leaked are quite specific: You just start setting up and keep setting up until you want to stop or you run out of room to deploy. You don't figure out how big a game you want to play, you just start deploying units and keep going until you want to stop.

MLaw wrote:Have we considered that some of the scenarios will perhaps only allow narrow deployments? 6" squares for instance.

Also, if the terrain ends up in the deployment zones this could create unfair advantages.

This is all still very much in the realm of we don't fething know anything yet. We've seen things sure.. but what we have seen may not be nearly as important as what we have not.

The leaked rules are again explicit about deployment zones. You roll off and the winning player chooses the 'type' of deployment (either long-edge half, short-edge half or L-shaped corner half), with the opposing player then choosing which half to take as theirs. Players can deploy within their 'territory' (their half of the table) so long as it isn't within 12" of the opponent's territory (the opposing half of the table). Depending on the size of the table you're playing that can be pretty limiting, as there always will be a 24" spacer between the forces. It's also probably why they list 3'x3' square as the minimum table size you can use.

Removed. Please don't make posts consisting solely of image macros.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oblivious!

I've been reaching for a word to encapsulate Talys' attitude for weeks, and it just struck me!

Utterly oblivious to problems that exist for other gamers, and apparently unwilling to attach any weight to them.

This is untrue. How many times have I said, if you're into small competitive games, 40k isn't the best selection?!

You seem to be totally unwilling to consider that a large population of players might actually enjoy relatively casual, entertaining games and that there nay be a market foe such things, centered around miniatures.

Also, as I've asked, pleas attack my positions rather than me, personally.

You know tight balanced rules would benifit those casual players as much, if not more, than the competitive players right? And you seem unwilling to consider the flip side, that a large population of players might enjoy a tight competitive game.

It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.
This is what astounds me about the hardcore tournament folks. Games like 40k and WHFB have never been written or intended for that purpose, yet people insist on twisting, tweaking and outright rewriting them regardless to make them fit. It's like buying a motorbike and complaining it's not fit to plough fields with, rather than buying a tractor.

If you want a tabletop equivalent of Starcraft then by all means, find and buy that. But please don't pretend that a company with zero history of interest in this goal is suddenly going to shift direction overnight thanks to the 2,439,397th Internet post on the subject. They're too busy knocking off early to the pub after collectively writing 4 pages of rules for a major product.

Lol.

The funniest thing here is the fact that GW created a few tourney rulesets (or tried to) and it was confirmed by Rick Priestley, he was about 3rd edition 40k and 5th or 6th fantasy afair.

Then the design studio said about 5 that it was too balanced and competitive and they want more craziness in 6th. They created the competitive ayer base themselves only to crap all over it later and hide their incompetence behind narrative excuses and cheap random mechanisms.

Doesnt stop casual players from spewing ignorant bs like your claim though.

Not to mention that a game without any balance, if not targeted at seasoned wargamers is just a pewpewing vehicle. Why do you evn need rulesets, just throw dice at minis.

Even with GWs reluctance to support competitive play, there really is nothing stopping the community from patching the game themselves and making it better.

Starcraft (both 1 and 2) has been largely balanced via the maps used by tournaments, but plenty of other games had community patches be the standard for competitive play.

For example: counter strike was originally a fan made mod of half life, as was the first team fortress (but for quake).

Dota was a custom map for warcraft 3, that went on to spawn an entire genre.

Quake had several competitive mods throughout its various incarnations i believe (promod etc, not a quake player so might get yhe name wrong here).

And perhaps the best example: when nintendo decided they didnt like how competitive the super smash community had become around Melee for the GameCube, and released a new version with blatant anti competition mechanics (like randomized tripping... yes... because that's fun for non-competitive players somehow?), the competitive community stuck to the older version and thrived, and also created a competitive patch for the new game called project m.
I'm not super knowledgeable about this scene but my understanding is both games shared a tourney scene with melee being a bit more popular.

And for a game like 40k or fantasy it should be even easier to create a fan made version. It's just that the community seems to have a simultaneous slavic devotion to following gw rules as written while in the same breath deriding their incompetence. I think something like the itc could eventually get enough traction to do something like this and be accepted though.

 yakface wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.

The rules that have been leaked are quite specific: You just start setting up and keep setting up until you want to stop or you run out of room to deploy. You don't figure out how big a game you want to play, you just start deploying units and keep going until you want to stop.

MLaw wrote:Have we considered that some of the scenarios will perhaps only allow narrow deployments? 6" squares for instance.

Also, if the terrain ends up in the deployment zones this could create unfair advantages.

This is all still very much in the realm of we don't fething know anything yet. We've seen things sure.. but what we have seen may not be nearly as important as what we have not.

The leaked rules are again explicit about deployment zones. You roll off and the winning player chooses the 'type' of deployment (either long-edge half, short-edge half or L-shaped corner half), with the opposing player then choosing which half to take as theirs. Players can deploy within their 'territory' (their half of the table) so long as it isn't within 12" of the opponent's territory (the opposing half of the table). Depending on the size of the table you're playing that can be pretty limiting, as there always will be a 24" spacer between the forces. It's also probably why they list 3'x3' square as the minimum table size you can use.

I just don't buy into the idea that we've seen everything yet..

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

Spoiler:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?

Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..

Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.

Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.

Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.

Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?

I think within 3" is is the range which you are "in combat", but the rules for attacking also state that you have to be within the listed range of the weapon in order to make an attack.

I don't mean to be argumentative but when I read the Combat Phase description in the rules it seems to definitively state that units within 3" get to make attacks with any and all melee weapons. Since every melee weapon can be used within 3" it seems like a melee range stat is irrelevant.

There seems to be two qualifiers that need to be met to make a melee attack:

-Be within 3", which allows you to make the pile in move.
- After the pile in move, be within the melee range of the equipped weapon.

While being within the 3 inches lets you "attack", we see that the actual attack is split up into two parts. Piling in, which requires the 3" range (it even says this lets you move in closer to be able to make an attack), and the actual melee attack, which uses the range stat of the weapon.

Edit: spelling!

OK, I found the bit in the Picking Targets section that mentions range. I would have thought they would have mentioned it more prominently in the Combat Phase and Attacking sections.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yakface wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.

The rules that have been leaked are quite specific: You just start setting up and keep setting up until you want to stop or you run out of room to deploy. You don't figure out how big a game you want to play, you just start deploying units and keep going until you want to stop.

You show up to play with any 35 models you want, I show up with the 142 model i want to uses. We both deploy all our models on the table and start playing. Given the chasm of disparity that could easily exist between the power levels of our two armies wouldn't playing like that be a bit of an obstacle to having fun?

The leaked rules I am sure are just the "Basic rules for playing" slips that are common with many starter boxes.

Lets just wait and see everyone, the end is not nigh.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Having another look through the rules, it seems to me that you can just walk away from combat? Charging seems to be the only way to get in combat, but if on your turn you are within that 3" range you can just retreat away. There is no more locked in combat.

Quite possibly. I read the part about retreat, and it didn't seem to say anything about "unless in combat" etc. So on your turn, you could move 4-5" directly away from that unit, but do nothing else.

But the enemy can move towards you if going second, or charge you if you retreated after their movement was over. You get into combat two ways 1) being within 3" in the assault phase and piling in. 2) being within 12" in the assault phase, moving 2d6" and coming in melee range.

So you might "get away" only to do nothing for the turn and then get beat on again. If you aren't locked in combat, neither is the other guy. Could lead to either a good tactical game, or really stupid stuff happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:
The leaked rules I am sure are just the "Basic rules for playing" slips that are common with many starter boxes.

Lets just wait and see everyone, the end is not nigh.

The leaked rules are the 4 page rules from the starter. Those will be posted online for a free download.

According to GW those are indeed the only rules.

 mikhaila wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Having another look through the rules, it seems to me that you can just walk away from combat? Charging seems to be the only way to get in combat, but if on your turn you are within that 3" range you can just retreat away. There is no more locked in combat.

Quite possibly. I read the part about retreat, and it didn't seem to say anything about "unless in combat" etc. So on your turn, you could move 4-5" directly away from that unit, but do nothing else.

But the enemy can move towards you if going second, or charge you if you retreated after their movement was over. You get into combat two ways 1) being within 3" in the assault phase and piling in. 2) being within 12" in the assault phase, moving 2d6" and coming in melee range.

So you might "get away" only to do nothing for the turn and then get beat on again. If you aren't locked in combat, neither is the other guy. Could lead to either a good tactical game, or really stupid stuff happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:
The leaked rules I am sure are just the "Basic rules for playing" slips that are common with many starter boxes.

Lets just wait and see everyone, the end is not nigh.

The leaked rules are the 4 page rules from the starter. Those will be posted online for a free download.

According to GW those are indeed the only rules.

Where is the confirmation? I must've missed it.

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Having another look through the rules, it seems to me that you can just walk away from combat? Charging seems to be the only way to get in combat, but if on your turn you are within that 3" range you can just retreat away. There is no more locked in combat.

Quite possibly. I read the part about retreat, and it didn't seem to say anything about "unless in combat" etc. So on your turn, you could move 4-5" directly away from that unit, but do nothing else.

But the enemy can move towards you if going second, or charge you if you retreated after their movement was over. You get into combat two ways 1) being within 3" in the assault phase and piling in. 2) being within 12" in the assault phase, moving 2d6" and coming in melee range.

So you might "get away" only to do nothing for the turn and then get beat on again. If you aren't locked in combat, neither is the other guy. Could lead to either a good tactical game, or really stupid stuff happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:
The leaked rules I am sure are just the "Basic rules for playing" slips that are common with many starter boxes.

Lets just wait and see everyone, the end is not nigh.

The leaked rules are the 4 page rules from the starter. Those will be posted online for a free download.

According to GW those are indeed the only rules.

Where is the confirmation? I must've missed it.

Click Mikhaila's name and check his post history, you'll shortly see the post about his conversation with his GW rep.

 Red Marine wrote:
AoS is bound to be a failure. Its a total change of a beloved 30 year product. There jettisoning there core players for mythical "new" players. Young people with whom they have to compete with CCGs & video games. Loser proposition.
.

This has been their business strategy since the late 1980's. The idea is always to bring in the new player (usually 12 years old or thereabouts), get him spending money for a couple of years, then forget about him as, at this point, he's no longer spending the amount of money that the company thinks a player should be spending. This game is addressing this issue directly. The old Warhammer game stopped bringing in new players fast enough and the only people who cared anymore were the veteran gamers. The one who already had all of their armies and would sometimes add to them (as opposed to building new armies from scratch). AoS is an attempt to make the game easier to jump in to for those 12 year olds. The fact that you're pissed off means nothing at all to them because you are no longer their core demographic.

So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?

Or are we tailoring as we go?

No offense to be given. But I'll wait till the release to see if those are the rules or not XD.

 Eldarain wrote:
So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?

Or are we tailoring as we go?

At the moment the only limitation we have (as far as I can tell) is that the models have to fit on the table edge.

No other way of limiting the game size is given.

 Necros wrote:
I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?

Yep. Same thing with Assault on Black Reach except they listed points but still wanted you to face the included forces against each other.
Neither force had all its special rules listed either.
Still too early to judge completely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?

Or are we tailoring as we go?

If one of my previous FLGS's is a sign, you're supposed to tailor as you go.
Every time I showed up, I'd be asked what I was fielding and then 15 minutes later my opponents would have great lists to counter my all-comers army

 yakface wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.

The rules that have been leaked are quite specific: You just start setting up and keep setting up until you want to stop or you run out of room to deploy. You don't figure out how big a game you want to play, you just start deploying units and keep going until you want to stop.

MLaw wrote:Have we considered that some of the scenarios will perhaps only allow narrow deployments? 6" squares for instance.

Also, if the terrain ends up in the deployment zones this could create unfair advantages.

This is all still very much in the realm of we don't fething know anything yet. We've seen things sure.. but what we have seen may not be nearly as important as what we have not.

The leaked rules are again explicit about deployment zones. You roll off and the winning player chooses the 'type' of deployment (either long-edge half, short-edge half or L-shaped corner half), with the opposing player then choosing which half to take as theirs. Players can deploy within their 'territory' (their half of the table) so long as it isn't within 12" of the opponent's territory (the opposing half of the table). Depending on the size of the table you're playing that can be pretty limiting, as there always will be a 24" spacer between the forces. It's also probably why they list 3'x3' square as the minimum table size you can use.

on a 4x6 board or 4x4 board, it works out to about what they are now. the problem is going smaller to a 3x3 like you sujested.

privateer4hire wrote:

 Necros wrote:
I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?

Yep. Same thing with Assault on Black Reach except they listed points but still wanted you to face the included forces against each other.
Neither force had all its special rules listed either.
Still too early to judge completely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?

Or are we tailoring as we go?

If one of my previous FLGS's is a sign, you're supposed to tailor as you go.
Every time I showed up, I'd be asked what I was fielding and then 15 minutes later my opponents would have great lists to counter my all-comers army

Again, I don't believe that there is a no points system and that the rules that come in the box is it, don't believe it one bit.

We'll find out this Saturday .

 Eldarain wrote:
So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?

Or are we tailoring as we go?

There are no rules for army creation. You just bring everything you want to bring, and deploy as much or as little of it as you want.

 insaniak wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?

Or are we tailoring as we go?

There are no rules for army creation. You just bring everything you want to bring, and deploy as much or as little of it as you want.

No solid confirmation on that yet. It sounds completely bogus.

 insaniak wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?

Or are we tailoring as we go?

There are no rules for army creation. You just bring everything you want to bring, and deploy as much or as little of it as you want.

In spite of what the GW reps are telling stores.... I just can't believe it. If they are truly going down that path they're going to lose a huge amount of appeal from anyone who isn't simply an avid collector. Even LOTR, a game which leans more heavily on narrative play, has points values so players have some semblance of what should be paired up against what.

At this point I'm mostly thinking "Well, the reps are probably being dumb and not wanting to "spoil" next month's release by saying what is coming out later".

Maybe campaign packs which place limits on things or something like that.

Exactly. There is no way that there is no balancing what so ever. I am sure GW Reps can only say so much and have to say only what they can about the first week of release.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 xttz wrote:

It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.

Given the popularity of competitive wargaming do you not think that, maybe just maybe GW should be producing a game like that?

Of course not, because actual competitive wargaming is a tiny niche that Warmahordes has already captured.

And Infinity, and Malifaux, and x-wing, and mantic....
Your ideas aren't consistent with reality.
A tight ruleset can be sold and played by everyone.
A crappy ruleset only appeals to people with low standards.

Anyone else getting some Diablo vibes from this?

Games workshop, despite some haters, has created some wonderfully balanced games, not all their content has been balanced, but the majority of their rulesets have been, they aren't going to just stop.

Games Workshop is a company which holds international tournaments where hundreds of masters participate in, they aren't going to create a game that cannot be balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Anyone else getting some Diablo vibes from this?

Oh yes. Very much, and this makes me happy.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
In spite of what the GW reps are telling stores.... I just can't believe it. If they are truly going down that path they're going to lose a huge amount of appeal from anyone who isn't simply an avid collector. Even LOTR, a game which leans more heavily on narrative play, has points values so players have some semblance of what should be paired up against what.

At this point I'm mostly thinking "Well, the reps are probably being dumb and not wanting to "spoil" next month's release by saying what is coming out later".

Maybe campaign packs which place limits on things or something like that.

This isn't just down to what the reps are telling people, this is from the rules that we've already seen. There is absolutely no indication in the rules that these are only supposed to apply to the starter set, or that they will be modified later. The rules that we have seen are all that there is.

Yes, they absolutely might release campaigns later than do different things. But for now, this is what it is.

LOL it also looks like GW has hired a marketing company to go on BOLS and talk up the game. There is a regular BOLS Troll (tm) that is calling out all of these users who have just created accounts today and are only talking about how much they are looking forward to the game and how great it will be. They are only posting in AoS posts and are just replying back and forth to each other how much the game looks rad, lol.

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
In spite of what the GW reps are telling stores.... I just can't believe it. If they are truly going down that path they're going to lose a huge amount of appeal from anyone who isn't simply an avid collector. Even LOTR, a game which leans more heavily on narrative play, has points values so players have some semblance of what should be paired up against what.

At this point I'm mostly thinking "Well, the reps are probably being dumb and not wanting to "spoil" next month's release by saying what is coming out later".

Maybe campaign packs which place limits on things or something like that.

This isn't just down to what the reps are telling people, this is from the rules that we've already seen. There is absolutely no indication in the rules that these are only supposed to apply to the starter set, or that they will be modified later. The rules that we have seen are all that there is.

Of course.... I'm just struggling to believe that they won't be modified later to bring in some way of balancing the game. I think at this point it's more likely they will be modified later and GW are just so caught up with the idea of secrecy that they'd rather tell people "Nup, this is it!" and surprise them next month than be honest and say "This is just a stopgap like Ravening Hordes was in 6th edition".

I'm genuinely looking forward to this.. at least to give it a peak.. Unfortunately this thread is not the place to talk about that, as it is stuck in a perpetual loop. It's like listening to deathmetal on cd and it starts skipping on the crappiest song on the album.

And people thought mantic's rules were too simple...