Age of Sigmar News & Rumours ; Pg 233 Slaughterbrutes and Mutaliths have had a Warscroll update

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.

**NewTruthNeomaxim**

str00dles1 wrote:

Also I asked on the point system for AoS. He said he didn't get tons of time with the book but as he was flipping through he did see Nagash is 700 points now. No idea on the army composition on whats a normal game of points for AoS.

Take with salt

Supposedly 2000pts is considered the "standard" game, and the point level around which the army-composition rules were written.

At 2000pts, you're supposedly limited to 3 heroes, and 3 monsters, of which Nagash counts as one of EACH, as does, supposedly any massive monster-sized hero.

That was from... I believe Heelenhammer's twitter?

**Chopxsticks**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Chopxsticks wrote:
Hmm I dont know how I feel about "First Expansion" "next few weeks"

Is this like content that should have been in the base game already kind of expansion??

Will have to wait and see..

since it appears to be minis, no, because having more of them would have pushed the price up (much as we might wish it not to be so)

True, but we dont know what to expect regardless. 4 mini's doesnt qualify as an "Expansion" in my mind. Thats like an add-on. If they package those 4 mini's and throw in game tiles, I'd call it an expansion.

This is just me though, so im really interested to see what the standard is going to be set at for GW, "expansions"

**Lockark**

Tzeetch Gors? TZEETCH MARKED BEAST MEN!?!?!?! I still got some old metal khorn-gors. I can't wait to see them do slaanesh ones, and revist the plague and khorn ones.

Also the Mist weaver almost looks like a slaanesh worshiper with that staff.

**Yodhrin**

Manchu wrote:
...let's just deal with this supposed "criticism" right now because it sounds like a problem with the customer ("but I wanted X") rather than the product.

This I take real issue with. A company does not get to use the name of a cherished cult product specifically so it can play on that name while marketing the new product, then totally abdicate any responsibility for expectations that has created in their customer base. GW wanted to trade on the nostalgia surrounding WHQ, that's why the only clue anywhere on the branding for this new game that it isn't just a straight update of the old product is the artwork featuring a Sigmarine, so if their new product fails to live up to that legacy that is a failure on their part not the customer's.

**Binabik15**

Is it worth it to go to my "local" (read: 1.5 hours train ride away) GW tomorrow to check out the minis in person? Or do the pics convey enough of the details, i.e. do the cultists have crazy detail on their backs or weapons not visible in the current pics?

**NAVARRO**

Yodhrin wrote:

A company does not get to use the name of a cherished cult product specifically so it can play on that name while marketing the new product, then totally abdicate any responsibility for expectations that has created in their customer base.

It happens in pretty much any industry, its called brand. Thats why you see" Established since 18XX" on many brand names trying to make their brand somewhat more prestigious... Surely when the company established itself had different products and the brand was very different from what it is in the present day. Its the brand evolving and adapting to the modern times. You may not like the changes and I respect that but companies do get to use the names and brands they have rights on and spin them the way they think its the best for their goals. Client expectations ( in this particular case) are only visible in sales numbers so you can only vote with your money mate.

**judgedoug**

Lockark wrote:
Tzeetch Gors? TZEETCH MARKED BEAST MEN!?!?!?! I still got some old metal khorn-gors. I can't wait to see them do slaanesh ones, and revist the plague and khorn ones

Yeah, same here! I have Khorngors and Pestigors and now I'm so happy to be adding some Tzangors to my Warhammer Skirmish/Mordheim Beastmen mix!

**Manchu**

Yodhrin wrote:
so if their new product fails to live up to that legacy that is a failure on their part not the customer's

That is a severely entitled viewpoint. The trade name itself is not a representation that the product will live up to anyone's nostalgia. GW wants to make a dungeon crawler board game leveraging their IP. "Warhammer Quest" is a perfectly appropriate title for that product, whatever a given customer would prefer or might expect. It's easy to tell if someone has a genuine interest in a product because they will look at it for what it is, rather than what it (apparently) "ought" to be.

judgedoug wrote:
adding some Tzangors

I am quite excited for what this might indicate about the eventual Beastman release for AoS, which as you know I have been eagerly awaiting!

**judgedoug**

Yodhrin wrote:
Manchu wrote:
...let's just deal with this supposed "criticism" right now because it sounds like a problem with the customer ("but I wanted X") rather than the product.

This I take real issue with. A company does not get to use the name of a cherished cult product specifically so it can play on that name while marketing the new product, then totally abdicate any responsibility for expectations that has created in their customer base. GW wanted to trade on the nostalgia surrounding WHQ, that's why the only clue anywhere on the branding for this new game that it isn't just a straight update of the old product is the artwork featuring a Sigmarine, so if their new product fails to live up to that legacy that is a failure on their part not the customer's.

Sure they can. GW is already guilty of it. They called Warhammer 8th edition, "Warhammer Fantasy Battles". They called Warhammer 40k 3rd edition, "Warhammer 40,000".

Any way, Warhammer Quest has been out of production for almost twenty years. Most of the complains are coming from older gents in their 30's like myself who just can't stand change and who love wearing the rose-tinted glasses. I, however, despite loving Warhammer Quest, know that is was a horribly broken and flawed system. (Complaints from the younger whipper-snappers are irrelevant and mostly based on "sigmarines are the dumb!11!1" and easily ignored) My only complaint is that this revamp didn't come out _sooner_. If a customer chooses to be wholly uneducated (which is really, really hard to do nowadays) and thinks that this is somehow the _exact same game_ that was released 21 years ago, then I would call that customer a liar.

**RoperPG**

Yodhrin wrote:
A company does not get to use the name of a cherished cult product

Wow, entitled much?

**Azreal13**

RoperPG wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
A company does not get to use the name of a cherished cult product

Wow, entitled much?

Not much, no.

When making a new, AoS based, board game, GW had any amount of opportunity to choose a different style or name at the very minimum.

They didn't, they chose a dungeon crawler and called it Warhammer Quest.

They did that in the full knowledge of what that entailed. If they have (and let's leave the emphasis on that if for the time being) departed from that legacy, knowingly or ineptly, then fans of the old game will have every right to feel negatively about it.

It could be The Phantom Menace all over again.

**General Kroll**

Binabik15 wrote:
Is it worth it to go to my "local" (read: 1.5 hours train ride away) GW tomorrow to check out the minis in person? Or do the pics convey enough of the details, i.e. do the cultists have crazy detail on their backs or weapons not visible in the current pics?

The actual minis are very impressive, but I'm not sure I'd make that kind of journey to go see them. The official pictures show most of the detail, seeing things and holding them in real life just underlines how lovely they are.

**Baron Klatz**

They can't? Oh, Nintendo is in for some bad news then....

**judgedoug**

Baron Klatz wrote:
They can't? Oh, Nintendo is in for some bad news then....

Exalted - I can imagine these naysayers are the same ones who are like "dual screens? how could Nintendo brand their handheld with their Nintendo logo when i'm used to my handhelds having one screen! this will fail utterly!" 100 million units sold later...

**Manchu**

Azreal13 wrote:
If they have (and let's leave the emphasis on that if for the time being) departed from that legacy, knowingly or ineptly, then fans of the old game will have every right to feel negatively about it.

People can and will be upset about anything at all ... I don't know where this idea of "having every right" comes from, except justifying entitlement ("__ ruined my childhood"). It's not impossible that Silver Tower could "depart" from WHQ's "legacy" in a way that makes it a better game for some, or even most, of its current customers ... and of course some people would still be upset that it wasn't what they played in the past, or at least not as they remember it (to which I say, uh fine, I guess). I mean, to use your example, Phantom Menace is a terrible movie whether Star Wars is plastered on it or not. The same could be true of Silver Tower vis-a-vis the WHQ brand. But it should be criticized for what it is rather than whoever's idiosyncratic sense of its "legacy." Plus there are no indications that the game is bad ... the problem here seems to be that the game "could be bad" or maybe some people just presume it will be because for them GW is always and everywhere bad (except in the imaginary Gold Age of Yore) and/or they hate Age of Sigmar.

**Swampmist**

Baron Klatz wrote:
They can't? Oh, Nintendo is in for some bad news then....

Exalted for giggles.

In serious news, I'm gonna try to nab the skaven off of whoever around me buys the game (will still bring them so that they can be used within the game obv.) Will also be hopping to see some skaven heroes get rules (Warlock Engineer could be fun), as I doubt daemons will be.

**judgedoug**

Azreal13 wrote:
RoperPG wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
A company does not get to use the name of a cherished cult product

Wow, entitled much?

When making a new, AoS based, board game, GW had any amount of opportunity to choose a different style or name at the very minimum.

That would be the dumbest move they could do, because they already own the branding for Warhammer Quest. So, make a new Warhammer Quest. What they did was in fact the smartest thing they could do. Use their pre-existing brand that has name recognition.

Azreal13 wrote:
then fans of the old game will have every right to feel negatively about it.

Haha, well, then, they wouldn't be buying it regardless of what it's called. They are not customers.

Azreal13 wrote:
It could be The Phantom Menace all over again.

not even comparable. if WHQ rules suck I'll still be delighted to have the miniatures and tiles etc. All I had after seeing that preview showing of Phantom Menace was a headache and a palpable sense of disappointment and disbelief.
And, let's be honest here, it is not very hard to make a game that has better rules than the original Warhammer Quest.

**streetsamurai**

I don't believe this 30% figure at all. Much more credible rumourmonger than this guy have stated that AOS is a disaster sale-wise

**Bull0**

GW releases a new Warhammer Quest, and the usual faces moan about it. Congratulations guys, you've achieved self-parody.

**judgedoug**

What astounds me is that there's dozens, if not hundreds, of preview copies of WQ2 kicking around and there's no discussions of the rules. There's a few snippets here and there, but most of these LGS owners are too lazy to spend nine minutes typing up some impressions and taking nice quality photos - y'know, with the horrible adverse effect of drumming up sales.

Anyways, what little info we have already informs me that the core system is better than WQ1. With WQ2 we roll dice and assign them to power stuff? Sounds like more choices than "roll a die, oops you missed! turn over loser, go take a nap for ten minutes"

**Manchu**

streetsamurai wrote:
I don't believe this 30% figure at all. Much more credible rumourmonger than this guy have stated that AOS is a disaster sale-wise

All the rumours along these lines that I have seen tell you more about what the people spreading them want to believe than what might be true.

**streetsamurai**

Yodhrin wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Swara wrote:
Ashitaka wrote:
Here's a post from my FLGS:

After taking a "heart-breaking" look of our demo copy and reading the rules, we have cut our order of WHQ by 70%. We advise caution in purchasing this product to ensure you know exactly what you are getting (or in this case, not getting).
Which means what?
Means the LGS owner is putting down an exciting new product on the eve of its release ... Genius!

Perhaps he knows his own local market better than folk on the internet do, and can anticipate that they will not be satisfied by whatever has changed/been removed relative to the original WHQ? Or is it only OK to credit FLGS owners with intelligence and local knowledge when they're praising AoS products to the heavens?

Exactly, I find it weird that some are criticizing the LGS owner. If he think the product is lacking, he should be complimented for giving this warning, not the oppossite. I guess some people think that a LGS should have a used car dealership mentality.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:
I don't believe this 30% figure at all. Much more credible rumourmonger than this guy have stated that AOS is a disaster sale-wise
All the rumours along these lines that I have seen tell you more about what the people spreading them want to believe than what might be true.

Might be true, but I doubt a guy like Hasting would jeopardize his reputation for that, even though he clearly despise AOS. Also, as some mentionned, I find it highly improbable that AOS nearly doubled the sales of WHFB, yet, profit were downs. Which would meant a pretty drastic reduction of sales for 40k, even with the HH success.(which we all knows sold like hot cake). Seems even more dubious when tou

I must say I'm still excited about this release. A bit dissapointing that GW seems to continue it's trend of releasing half baked product (at least, when compared to what they were doing a decade or two ago), but games look cool even considering that the newest ICV2 reports doesn't have AOS in the top 5, whilt WHFB was in it.

**Manchu**

streetsamurai wrote:
I guess some people think that a LGS should have a used car dealership mentality.

Here's a really good example of a rational, ethical mentality as far as owning/managing a LGS goes:

Smellingsalts wrote:
I own an LGS. The reason many companies send out advanced copies of games is so that people can play them and test them out for themselves. Rather than tell your customer base that the game is terrible, demo a game for them and see if they like it. There are stores in my town with employees who bad-talked Warmachine for years and told every customer that 40K was a better game. The result was that they clearanced out all of their Warmachine and no-one plays it in their store, while my Warmachine leagues boomed. It's ok to have your own opinion, but it's just that, your opinion. I personally refuse to play Train games and Magic, but I would be cutting my wrists if I actively prevented people from buying those games. I train my clerks to ask what people like and guide them towards games that match those likes, but if a customer decides that he wants to buy a particular game, my clerks let him buy it. I have clerks that like games involving cats, but can you imagine them discouraging a sale because the game chosen doesn't have a single cat in it? I try to inform my customers about games, but in a neutral way. I provide computers for them to go on Board Game Geek and check the ratings of games. I run demos for them to try it out and make up their own minds about a game. Most sales people in the gaming industry are taught never to talk down another company's product. It makes you look petty and defensive. In sales, you can't discourage purchases and survive long. As for WHQ, the old WHQ played like a smaller version of WFB. You can't expect the new version to play like that. The new version is similar to AOS in that it's easy to learn and play, and each character can do a bunch of actions in their turn. Here's one cool improvement, there is no "roll a one phase." So your wizard doesn't have to feel guilty about wandering monsters swamping your party.

streetsamurai wrote:
I doubt a guy like Hasting would jeopardize his reputation for that

Misinformation isn't always intentional.

**judgedoug**

streetsamurai wrote:
I find it highly improbable that AOS nearly doubled the sales of WHFB, yet, profit were downs. Which would meant a pretty drastic reduction of sales for 40k, even with the HH success.(which we all knows sold like hot cake).

Of course Age of Sigmar has sold more than WHFB. I literally cannot believe that people refuse to believe this. Anyone reading this, set aside whatever your feelings are for the rules - we all know WHFB was in the dumps with unsold product filling up store shelves. No new players were being created and players were leaving. New releases were engineered specifically to get the shrinking player base to buy new units. Age of Sigmar comes along and now there's new plastic kits that are brilliantly engineered - the same grumpy WHFB players now play 9th Age or KoW but are still buying Warhammer kits at the same rate they were before (as in, almost none), but there's new sales from new kits of new armies. It's preposterous to think that Age of Sigmar's sales are worse than Warhammer's.

**Manchu**

Well in any case ... let's save the debate on how well/poorly AoS is doing for a different thread, preferably in the AoS general discussion area.

**streetsamurai**

Manchu wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:
I guess some people think that a LGS should have a used car dealership mentality.
Here's a really good example of a rational, ethical mentality as far as owning/managing a LGS goes:
Smellingsalts wrote:
I own an LGS. The reason many companies send out advanced copies of games is so that people can play them and test them out for themselves. Rather than tell your customer base that the game is terrible, demo a game for them and see if they like it. There are stores in my town with employees who bad-talked Warmachine for years and told every customer that 40K was a better game. The result was that they clearanced out all of their Warmachine and no-one plays it in their store, while my Warmachine leagues boomed. It's ok to have your own opinion, but it's just that, your opinion. I personally refuse to play Train games and Magic, but I would be cutting my wrists if I actively prevented people from buying those games. I train my clerks to ask what people like and guide them towards games that match those likes, but if a customer decides that he wants to buy a particular game, my clerks let him buy it. I have clerks that like games involving cats, but can you imagine them discouraging a sale because the game chosen doesn't have a single cat in it? I try to inform my customers about games, but in a neutral way. I provide computers for them to go on Board Game Geek and check the ratings of games. I run demos for them to try it out and make up their own minds about a game. Most sales people in the gaming industry are taught never to talk down another company's product. It makes you look petty and defensive. In sales, you can't discourage purchases and survive long. As for WHQ, the old WHQ played like a smaller version of WFB. You can't expect the new version to play like that. The new version is similar to AOS in that it's easy to learn and play, and each character can do a bunch of actions in their turn. Here's one cool improvement, there is no "roll a one phase." So your wizard doesn't have to feel guilty about wandering monsters swamping your party.

streetsamurai wrote:
I doubt a guy like Hasting would jeopardize his reputation for that
Misinformation isn't always intentional.

But what if the rules are indeed terrible ? Should he still act neutrally toward the product, or should he warn his customers ? also, as some have said, the guy probably knows what kind of game his customers loves, and who they are. If he sells mostly to old veteran players, i think it is laudable that he warns them that despite the game being called WQ, it share very little with the original WQ

**sadysaneto**

Man, I've read my share of aos nonsense hate.

But "they cannot change a 20 yrs old IP they own, because" takes the cake

**Chopxsticks**

But what if the rules are indeed terrible ? Should he still act neutrally toward the product, or should he warn his customers ? also, as some have said, the guy probably knows what kind of game his customers loves, and who they are. If he sells mostly to old veteran players, i think it is laudable that he warns them that despite the game being called WQ, it share very little with the original WQ

Wouldnt that be his impression though? Bad rules to some, good rules to others, its matter of opinion. Also couldnt he warn them in a different fashion, than taking a stand on a public facing Facebook page? Whats that saying "Dont bite the hand that feeds"

Is GW not going to see that and go hmmm, maybe not send that guy another anything before release date... His post to his customers is now a topic being discussed here, so you could argue the repercussions are greater.

Rules aside, 51 models for $150 when each clam pack is roughly $25-$40 these days, that alone is insane value. the 6 Hero's alone pay for the entire box!!

**streetsamurai**

Man, I've read my share of aos nonsense hate.

But "they cannot change a 20 yrs old IP they own, because" takes the cake

I don't think anybody said that

**NinthMusketeer**

GW is releasing a new version of an old game complete with a nice set of miniatures and it gets spun into some terrible betreyal of the customer. Yeah, clearly we were better off with them releasing nothing instead. Some people just aren't going to be happy because they personally know anything AoS GW releases is going to be bad so naturally that's what they see. Take that and apply it to the profit rumors; the same could be true with Hastings saying that AoS is failing. Coupled with the chance he could be judging what were no doubt weaker 2015 sales (compared to 2016) as the overall trend and I can see how Hastings may honestly be giving what he sees as the truth. Meanwhile, others with more up-to-date information and less bias could also be correct with the 30% statistic, especially if 40k sales dropped overall.

All of this can go the other way too; it's entirely possible that a positive bias is leading to an overly optimistic opinion, but something like "30% of profits" sounds less subjective than "AoS is failing hard". And with the buying sprees of discontinued models associated with the Grand Alliance book releases and also the value of Start Collecting boxes I think it's more likely that AoS has seen boosted sales this year then it tanking hard.