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.

 Atia wrote:
Guys ....

The pic above is a converted unit. The text is the hint.

Wouldn't be surprised to see them finally release their multipart Khorgorath ...^^

That is definitely a possibility, but why use the word tasty? It sounds more like ghouls or possibly zombies. Out of everything in the death grand alliance the zombies are the most in need of a refresh.

 Manchu wrote:

 Atia wrote:
how long do they post their white dwarf studio armies now on the last site? It has nothing to do with next week

Are you bound by some kind of rumour monger code that prevents you from just posting what you mean?

Plumbumbarum wrote:
you can also say that they just want to release something broken here and there for the good old boost in sales, or are just desparate or sth tbh

I think at minimum GW wants some control over what rules are used at organized events, even if it isn't running them or even supporting them.

What she means is that the picture on the last page, in this case someone's converted Dark Elves, have nothing to do with the text hint for next week's magazine. In this case I'd guess maybe Undead? Korgorath maybe but they don't care about "tasty flesh", they just want the skulls! Hopefully zombies, those are horrific models currently.

Very helpful, Mymearan - just want to make sure the title accurately reflects the leak. I haven't read a WD since AoS was released so ... I have no idea if a WD leaked pic is somebody's personal conversion or a repackaged release.

 Manchu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Tournament competive players don't really benefit from points and balance from the core. It's narrative gamers who are biggest benefiters.

In what world ... ?

Narrative gamers can get roughly equal games quickly without having to worry about getting stomped.

Tournament players DON'T CARE that there's crap unit and broken unit. They just take the broken unit. They don't have any specific reason "I want to have this unit" except it's most efficient. Therefore whether it's unit A or unit B it's irrelevant. If it's A then tournament players take A, if it's B they take B.

Narrative players meanwhile some want to take A or some want to take B because of look, fluff, specific scenario.

THEY are the ones that benefit from having even roughly decent way of ensuring it's not stomp fest even by accident(one wouldn't think taking single tzeentch herald be recipe for stompfestival...Until you realize you are fairly sure to have about 100 herald right off the bat and keep piling up until you start bombarding with mortal wounds).

Tournament players simply find task of figuring out most bang for bucks part the fun. For them it's irrelevant are points balanced or not.

For people asking about feedback on SCGT points, I wrote a tournament battle report from a Scottish tournament that made use of SCGT points and comp. I found it to be a good pack, but overlong, and the scenarios (we only played the first three) to be kind of boringly samey. The points seemed good, and I never felt that they were to blame for any victories.

tneva82 wrote:
Narrative gamers can get roughly equal games quickly without having to worry about getting stomped.

Again - you seem to be talking about pick-up gaming. Setting up a scenario does not at all entail a points system if the principal aim is to play out a dramatic battle, as opposed to giving each side a roughly equal chance at victory, all else being equal, which is actually the point (or at least a point) of balance in PUGs. Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.

tneva82 wrote:
Tournament players DON'T CARE that there's crap unit and broken unit.

IME this isn't true, or at least not the whole truth. Some tourney gamers don't care and are WAAC types. Others find that kind of thing to be the bane of tournaments, which after all are supposed to be competitions of skillful playing.

New zombies? Does that mean it's time to stock up on classic zombies?

The teaser sounds like Tyranids to me...

Somehow, but tasty would still not make sense for Tyranids

 Manchu wrote:
Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.

In what world?

New zombies would be awesome.

 kodos wrote:
Somehow, but tasty would still not make sense for Tyranids

 Manchu wrote:
Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.

In what world?

Just look at Historicals.

The true tactical master wins against the odds, muahahaha. Used to love small force + fortifications vs BIG force games of Epic. I digress...

Points can only be a good thing. Ignore 'em if you wanna (as you can do in any game if you choose), play a scenario (or make your own instead of buying a book, where did creativity go?) or comp it up and min-max to your black heart's content. It's all good. Hard to find a negative here anywhere!

Oh god, new zombies would hurt my wallet. Currently the only GW sculpts I'd happily swap for Mantic.

New zombies would be ace - but with Atia mentioning the Khorne kit I'm assuming it will be more of those dudes..

They have a Deadwalker event at WHW in a few months, that's why I'm guessing it is them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Tournament competive players don't really benefit from points and balance from the core. It's narrative gamers who are biggest benefiters.

In what world ... ?

In the world in which narrative players like to be able to quickly put together a scenario between roughly-equal forces instead of spending a bunch of time creating their own balance system to figure out what forces would be appropriate. For example, a narrative player who plays a good narrative game (IOW, not AoS or 40k) can say "let's play a siege game, I'll take 750 points and this fortification, you get 1000 points to attack it" and have a reasonable expectation that the game will be balanced and fun on the first attempt to play it. With AoS you can't do that, you have to negotiate specific forces that you think will be roughly equal because there's no way to determine how powerful a given unit is. It's a much harder task to do, and involves spending a lot of time on something that has nothing to do with the desired story-focused aspects of the game.

Tournament players, on the other hand, just play whatever is most overpowered if you make balance mistakes. They certainly benefit from having better balance, but it's much less essential.

Surely tournament players/powergamer would NOT want a composition system that stops them from fielding ten Bloodthirsters and a Stardrake if they lust for cheese?

I never plan on going to a tournament, but I welcome/want a composition mechanism so I can plan and collect and convert a given force and know that it wouldn't simply roflstomp another of mine or my brother's. It also helps me to size up projects.

Having a framework to use does not mean one wants to powergame. Lists and armies will be stronger or weaker unless you play identical armies, but it's no reason to not even offer something to make army selection more than "plunk down whatever you want".

 Charles Rampant wrote:
For people asking about feedback on SCGT points, I wrote a tournament battle report from a Scottish tournament that made use of SCGT points and comp. I found it to be a good pack, but overlong, and the scenarios (we only played the first three) to be kind of boringly samey. The points seemed good, and I never felt that they were to blame for any victories.

Thanks for the summary and the link, Charles Rampant! It's very helpful

I assume its either new zombies or the Khorgorath

Sounds like they're finally getting around to releasing the limited edition Smeagol.

 Bottle wrote:
@Yodhrin, now there will be balanced play have you considered using the AoS rules for some skirmish games set in the Old World? (If you wanted to go for a slightly bigger scale than Mordheim offers). I hope you give it a try. :-)

And to chime in with the news. I am overjoyed.

Why on earth would I reward GW for blowing up the setting? I won't help perpetuate AoS by playing it or buying AoS model releases(not even, as is the case with the Orc Shaman, when I quite like them) from GW. If I want to play skirmish games in the Realhammer World, I can do that also without paying a penny for rules without even having to move outside GW by continuing to use the far-superior Mordheim system. That's without even considering the various other skirmish systems out there which all have more depth to them than AoS - crikey Ketara managed in just a couple of days to come up with a conversion of most of The Empire's rules into the LotR SBG that looks more interesting than AoS.

GW, for my money, had three roles to play; providing a ubiquitous game system that made it easy to find other players, and supporting the IPs I enjoyed with new fiction and models that fit the aesthetic. With AoS, they're scoring 0.5 out of 3(because some of the new models still fit with WHF's aesthetic), and that's not a level I'm willing to support with my time or spending.

I'm not going to lie, a part of me hopes this makes no difference and AoS continues to tank hard because its demise is I think probably the only chance, vanishingly small though it may be, of seeing WHFB back before I'm drawing a pension, but that's just selfishness on my part.

 Manchu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
but the community as it stands looks like the majority of AoS players took the game and made it into a structured one

You have to look at what your evidence is for this kind of claim. Generally, it tends to be pretty heavily biased. "Most people on a forum dedicated to pick-up game rulesets have tried to turn AoS into a pick-up game." Well, sure.

Based on what Hastings has to say(and the preponderance of anecdote from indie store owners and clubs), there aren't enough people outside of "people on a forum dedicated to pick-up game rulesets" playing AoS, because it's tanking like an M1-A1 Abrams. GW made almost no effort to save WHFB, which accounted for around 20% of their revenue and was still profitable just not profitable enough, and AoS is doing worse than that - AoS fans should really be kissing GW's feet for trying anything at all to keep the system afloat, rather than moaning at the possibility they might have to interact with the competitive peasantry.

Just saying... Couldn't it be the hint is referring to Ogres? Ghouls are rather "new", speaking of models, and Warhammer Zombies are more the classic kind of shambling undeads, rather than flesh-eating, speaking entities.

I find this encouraging. It could mean that the management finally realizes that the majority of their money doesn't come from people who just buy anything they shovel out. Their market isn't 'collectors.'

Its people who play their game. And when you don't have a game they like anymore... they'll leave! (shocking!).

These fumbling steps are maybe the first signs they're trying to figure out what people actually want, rather than 'they want to give us money'.

 Yodhrin wrote:


GW, for my money, had three roles to play; providing a ubiquitous game system that made it easy to find other players, and supporting the IPs I enjoyed with new fiction and models that fit the aesthetic.

They did that, now they don't. Time to move on, I reckon.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


GW, for my money, had three roles to play; providing a ubiquitous game system that made it easy to find other players, and supporting the IPs I enjoyed with new fiction and models that fit the aesthetic.

They did that, now they don't. Time to move on, I reckon.

Off you go then

Joyboozer wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


GW, for my money, had three roles to play; providing a ubiquitous game system that made it easy to find other players, and supporting the IPs I enjoyed with new fiction and models that fit the aesthetic.

They did that, now they don't. Time to move on, I reckon.

Off you go then

I did years ago. I still find the comings and goings of GW interesting though.

Then you haven't moved on. Neither have I, and I doubt Yodhrin will either. Are we demented?

Joyboozer wrote:
Then you haven't moved on. Neither have I, and I doubt Yodhrin will either. Are we demented?

Well, it passes the time at work.

Joyboozer is right. How dare some of you continue to participate and take interest in the releases of a company in a community you enjoy being part of.

Oh wait...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Joyboozer is right. How dare some of you continue to participate and take interest in the releases of a company in a community you enjoy being part of.

Oh wait...

Yes, how dare they.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Somehow, but tasty would still not make sense for Tyranids

 Manchu wrote:
Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.

In what world?

Just look at Historicals.

And?
I play a lot of them since Fantasy 8th. And in all of them both side had always a fair shot at victory.
Victory conditions were not always that straight foward like "kill all" but both sides had always a chance to win

(no reason to play D-Day in FoW without having a chance to lose the game as allied Player. if you win no matter what you do there is no reason to play)