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.

So I've been getting closer and closer to succumbing to my love of Skaven and taking the plunge, now that it seems easier than ever to get them going. My main question is that I am a little unclear as to what the battletomes are for, and what they provide to the game.

AoS was pitched to me as this: a easy to pick up game with free rules online to lower the barrier to entry. And it looks like the rules for all the models are available for free online. But then I see these 'battletomes' for Khorne Bloodbound, Stormcast Eternal and Lizardmen. And no there's a clan pestilens one coming? So if all the rules are available online, then why should I buy these? Are they just for people who want a physical copy + fluff?

Sorry if this question is incredibly obvious, but thanks for the help in advance!

 mazik765 wrote:
So I've been getting closer and closer to succumbing to my love of Skaven and taking the plunge, now that it seems easier than ever to get them going. My main question is that I am a little unclear as to what the battletomes are for, and what they provide to the game.

AoS was pitched to me as this: a easy to pick up game with free rules online to lower the barrier to entry. And it looks like the rules for all the models are available for free online. But then I see these 'battletomes' for Khorne Bloodbound, Stormcast Eternal and Lizardmen. And no there's a clan pestilens one coming? So if all the rules are available online, then why should I buy these? Are they just for people who want a physical copy + fluff?

Sorry if this question is incredibly obvious, but thanks for the help in advance!

Rules free from the GW website or via the official app.

The Battletomes are more for completists. They provide paper versions of the unit rules, fluff, and then exclusive Battleplans and Formations.

The exclusive content can be bought digitally as 'DLC' via the app.

On a side-note, the Pestilens stuff has two boxsets so with FLGS discount that's a decent saving. I'll be picking up the Virulent box this weekend.

Inside the battletomes there are:

1. Some cool art pieces
2. Some army backstory and individual entries chiefly describing how and with what the unit fights.
3. 3 or so additional, missions (scenarios)
4. Model gallery - pictures of painted models
5. Army formations giving additional rules for choosing specific units
6. Printed rules for all models released so far for the faction
7. The AoS core rules

 mazik765 wrote:
Are they just for people who want a physical copy + fluff?

Yes.

The Seraphon's battletome was so full of gakky fluff, horribly written stories, and terrible illustrations I'm never buying one again =]

Thanks for the advice guys! I guess the most confusing part was that some seem to be for entire forces (e.g. Lizardmen, Stormcast) whereas others seem to be for factons within traditional forces (e.g. Khorne Bloodbound for Chaos and Clan Pestilens for Skaven). This distinction of what a 'battletome' can consist of just seemed kind of arbitrary. Thanks for the clarifications!

Just to add to the confusion there are also the Grand Alliance Compendiums. I would definitely recommend those though. They are priced very competitively.

Seeing how they are releasing a stormcast eternals battletome addon not too long ago after Stormcast Eternals was released. I have no interest in purchasing any battletomes and grand alliance books in the future. Warscrolls are free online and it seems better to just print pages of warscrolls and put it into a binder.

The only reason I think you may want the battletomes is if you really like the AoS fluff and to learn more about the "different factions." As mentioned by others the fluff is not that great and seems rather incomplete/lacking for a book with "tome" in its name .

The only books that i would consider purchasing now is just the campaign books to finish the 'story arc" of the Realmgate Wars.

 akai wrote:
Seeing how they are releasing a stormcast eternals battletome addon not too long ago after Stormcast Eternals was released. I have no interest in purchasing any battletomes and grand alliance books in the future. Warscrolls are free online and it seems better to just print pages of warscrolls and put it into a binder.

The only reason I think you may want the battletomes is if you really like the AoS fluff and to learn more about the "different factions." As mentioned by others the fluff is not that great and seems rather incomplete/lacking for a book with "tome" in its name .

The only books that i would consider purchasing now is just the campaign books to finish the 'story arc" of the Realmgate Wars.

This, to an extent.
I think the Battletomes are suffering from a hangover in understanding from army books, which is why people are baulking at another Stormcast book after what, 7 months?
You no longer *need* to buy the rules for your miniatures, which was the primary driver for army book sales.
What you get in Battletomes (or the Battle packs on the app) are extra bits like warscroll battalions, times of War and battle plans.
In addition, the Battletomes provide artwork and fluff.

It's really a case of personal preference. If you want the whole bundle, then the Battletomes are great. If you just want the rules, consider the battle pack. If you don't... You can still use your toys.

 mazik765 wrote:
Thanks for the advice guys! I guess the most confusing part was that some seem to be for entire forces (e.g. Lizardmen, Stormcast) whereas others seem to be for factons within traditional forces (e.g. Khorne Bloodbound for Chaos and Clan Pestilens for Skaven). This distinction of what a 'battletome' can consist of just seemed kind of arbitrary. Thanks for the clarifications!

To try to clear it up further, everything 'current' in AoS is organized into small subfactions. That's where you see things like 'Pestilens' and 'Khorne Bloodbound' and 'Deathrattle' and so forth. Since you're not required to take everything from one place anymore, it lets them release thematically focused small armies like Fyreslayers.

Most of the 'big' armies you see are just the groupings from where they initially transferred over WHFB and grouped everything by their WHFB army names. There are a still a few like Stormcast Eternals that have a lot under the one umbrella, but they're the exceptions rather than the rule (so far).

 Manchu wrote:
There are dozens of threads about whether/why Poster X loves/hates AoS. This is not that thread. Feel free to join that debate in the AoS subforum. Thanks!

 judgedoug wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
As for the fiction, Ill admit that reading the first few pages of the first book was more than enough.

the gak that goes down in these novels and the fluff that one gets a glimpse of from time to time around the edges of the main stories is pretty awesome. most of these comments on the internet are from positions of ignorance. Guess what, if you don't read the fluff you will think there is nothing interesting about the world!

I guess this is 'that debate'. So to Judgedoug: there's two barriers to move from that position of ignorance - one is that the readily available fluff online doesn't grab people enough to look deeper. Not to the extent that the old world did, anyway.
Two - you have to buy all these blinkin' battletomes and BL novels in order to look deeper. "No guys, seriously, you get little glimpses of fluff around the edges of the main story if you run out and buy all this stuff" is not the incentive you might think it is.

Not to mention I quickly gave up on any books from the BL that didn't have 'Dan Abnett' or 'Graham MacNeill' on the cover.

Instead of buying all the Battletomes, I suppose one could just purchase ... a single novel.

 Vermis wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
There are dozens of threads about whether/why Poster X loves/hates AoS. This is not that thread. Feel free to join that debate in the AoS subforum. Thanks!

 judgedoug wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
As for the fiction, Ill admit that reading the first few pages of the first book was more than enough.

the gak that goes down in these novels and the fluff that one gets a glimpse of from time to time around the edges of the main stories is pretty awesome. most of these comments on the internet are from positions of ignorance. Guess what, if you don't read the fluff you will think there is nothing interesting about the world!

I guess this is 'that debate'. So to Judgedoug: there's two barriers to move from that position of ignorance - one is that the readily available fluff online doesn't grab people enough to look deeper. Not to the extent that the old world did, anyway.
Two - you have to buy all these blinkin' battletomes and BL novels in order to look deeper. "No guys, seriously, you get little glimpses of fluff around the edges of the main story if you run out and buy all this stuff" is not the incentive you might think it is.

Not to mention I quickly gave up on any books from the BL that didn't have 'Dan Abnett' or 'Graham MacNeill' on the cover.

Yeah, it's such an absurd argument, that I didn't even think it was worth the time to respond to it. Glad you did for me :

To be honest, I skimmed through the dwarves book and it was a bit better than the rest of what I've seen. Not exactly interesting, but a slight improvement.

Pretty bold move calling someone else's argument absurd given you made a blanket claim about AoS:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Well, they better tap into that potential asap, cause since its release, we havent seen much originality from AOS

Despite having very little actual insight to back it up:

 streetsamurai wrote:
As for the fiction, Ill admit that reading the first few pages of the first book was more than enough.

I guess this is why you agree with the guy who also admits he hasn't read anything about what he is criticizing?

 Vermis wrote:
Not to mention I quickly gave up on any books from the BL that didn't have 'Dan Abnett' or 'Graham MacNeill' on the cover.

Thankfully, I have a friend who buys every single novel and battletome and keeps me abreast of the metaplot and all the over-the-top set piece scenes. So I get my AoS fluff filtered by what he thinks is cool and his awesome recounting of it and his enthusiasm is infectious ... not to the point where I want to start collecting all of them but it has spurred me to grab a few, the Khorne and Seraphon ones. I got the Khorne one because I want to run that army but the Seraphon one I got when contemplating starting a lizardman army precisely because of how neat the fluff sounded. YMMV, of course. But it's always better to base criticism on knowledge rather than ignorance.

 Vermis wrote:
I guess this is 'that debate'. So to Judgedoug: there's two barriers to move from that position of ignorance -

Well, three. The third is that one's opinion is so hostile and they are so entrenched in their position that no amount of coaxing and coercing could move them. For the rest of us, the fluff is simply awesome, and while I love The Thirty Years War, I'm becoming more of a fan of the actual history of TYW versus the Warhammer faux-TYW.

Yeah, the deck was pretty stacked against WHFB so long as it was going for the 30YW feel because actual history is always more interesting than some IP plus it did not leave the setting much "breathing space" as it were, which is something 40k has always done really well. Now with the Realms being seemingly infinite, there is room in the setting for pretty much anything that might happen on the table, maybe except Stormcast v Stormcast. That would be tough to explain, at least based on my understanding.

 Manchu wrote:
I guess this is why you agree with the guy who also admits he hasn't read anything about what he is criticizing?

"I'm going to go to a forum that talks about The Hundred Years War. I'll complain about how it's not interesting. Someone replies that if you read about it you will find it interesting. I reply that I read a few paragraphs but couldn't pronounce any of the French names, got frustrated, and haven't read any further. But I'm sure as hell going to squat in that forum like a coiled turd and comment on how the Hundred Years War is dumb. "

 Manchu wrote:
Pretty bold move calling someone else's argument absurd given you made a blanket claim about AoS:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Well, they better tap into that potential asap, cause since its release, we havent seen much originality from AOS

Despite having very little actual insight to back it up:

 streetsamurai wrote:
As for the fiction, Ill admit that reading the first few pages of the first book was more than enough.

I guess this is why you agree with the guy who also admits he hasn't read anything about what he is criticizing?

 Vermis wrote:
Not to mention I quickly gave up on any books from the BL that didn't have 'Dan Abnett' or 'Graham MacNeill' on the cover.

Thankfully, I have a friend who buys every single novel and battletome and keeps me abreast of the metaplot and all the over-the-top set piece scenes. So I get my AoS fluff filtered by what he thinks is cool and his awesome recounting of it and his enthusiasm is infectious ... not to the point where I want to start collecting all of them but it has spurred me to grab a few, the Khorne and Seraphon ones. I got the Khorne one because I want to run that army but the Seraphon one I got when contemplating starting a lizardman army precisely because of how neat the fluff sounded. YMMV, of course. But it's always better to base criticism on knowledge rather than ignorance.

For the record, the lack of originality comment was refering to the models released for AOS. Not the fluff.

AOS fluff is not exactly a Dostoyevsky story. Reading a few pages here and there gives you more than enough insights to realise wether you like it or not. And yes, it's an absurd argument to ask people to spend hours reading books and novels when they don't like the foundations. It 's the classical falacious "if you knew as much as me on this, you'd like it" argument. In fact, thinking about it, i was lying when I said I only read the first few pages of the first book, cause I also rebember reading a few pages of the Seraphon one. ANd contrarly to you, I tought it was really poorly written and bland. As I said, the only book I find midly interesting was thedwarves one, cause it's the first one that depicts something that might actually pass for a civilization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I guess this is why you agree with the guy who also admits he hasn't read anything about what he is criticizing?

"I'm going to go to a forum that talks about The Hundred Years War. I'll complain about how it's not interesting. Someone replies that if you read about it you will find it interesting. I reply that I read a few paragraphs but couldn't pronounce any of the French names, got frustrated, and haven't read any further. But I'm sure as hell going to squat in that forum like a coiled turd and comment on how the Hundred Years War is dumb. "

That's not a good comparaison. Do you realise that AOS universe is the continuation of the WHFB universe? IT's not exactly hard to understand why disfranchised former warhamme players are interested in it, and complains about the parts of it they don't like. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of people who criticize AOS wants to like it, but feels that the game and fluff as it is, is vastly dissapointing.

A much better comparaison would be fans of a certain movie complaining about the sequel.

No one is arguing that you'd like it if you read it. I agree that is a bad argument. For example, I have spent hours and hours reading Graham McNeill's novels and none of that made me like them any better. (Not that I would confuse me disliking them for them being bad.) Rather, the argument you are making is that you haven't read it and from that you conclude that it is bad. Of course, you have conveniently started "remembering" reading more and more as the conversation continues ... In any case, the counterargument to your point was that lack of knowledge isn't a sound basis for criticism. Also - what in the world are you trying to accomplish by comparing toy soldiers stories to Dostoyevsky? Honestly, what is your point? That AoS is not as well written as something by one of the most celebrated writers in the world?

As for this "continuation of" argument ... you don't need to be a "disenfranchised WHFB player" (there is no such thing, no one was ever "enfranchised" as a WHFB player to begin with) to complain about what you don't like. People who actually play AoS also complain about some aspects of it. Once again, the problem is complaining from a position of ignorance: "this is not what I want so it is bad."

 Manchu wrote:
No one is arguing that you'd like it if you read it. I agree that is a bad argument. For example, I have spent hours and hours reading Graham McNeill's novels and none of that made me like them any better. (Not that I would confuse me disliking them for them being bad.) Rather, the argument you are making is that you haven't read it and from that you conclude that it is bad. Of course, you have conveniently started "remembering" reading more and more as the conversation continues ... In any case, the counterargument to your point was that lack of knowledge isn't a sound basis for criticism. Also - what in the world are you trying to accomplish by comparing toy soldiers stories to Dostoyevsky? Honestly, what is your point? That AoS is not as well written as something by one of the most celebrated writers in the world?

No, you completely missed what I meant. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, but my point was that reading a few pages of AOS fluff will make it realise wether you like it or not. It's not exactly a deep, complicated setting. If it was, then I would undertand your and doug argument (hence the Dostoyevsky reference)

Probably closer to the truth, most people decide whether they like something or not before deciding to spend time/money on it. So if you are "in the mood" for AoS then you will likely read more than a few pages of it. But yes reading only a few pages is probably enough to log onto Dakka and complain about how the AoS fluff is uniformly bad. But of course reading zero pages is just as sufficient if that's your goal. On the whole, however, I kind of agree with you: I don't think anyone needs to read a whole battletome to figure out if this is the kind of genre they like. But that is just a genre judgment. I don't really like mystery novels, for example. But I'm not going to say Miss Marple books suck because I read a few pages of one and couldn't get into it. AoS is meant to be judged by its cover. That's part of the marketing. But the only relevant judgment that can result is answering, do I want to spend time and money on this or not? Not whether it is good or bad.

 Manchu wrote:
Yeah, the deck was pretty stacked against WHFB so long as it was going for the 30YW feel because actual history is always more interesting than some IP plus it did not leave the setting much "breathing space" as it were

I must have been dozing in history class when we went over all the dragons, high elves and vampires that participated in the 30 Years War...

To be fair to AOS, I'd say that most 40k and WHFB books are also not very interesting for me, as they concentrate way too much on heroe's and battles. For me, the most interesting part of a setting is the "sociological" (for lack of a better word) aspect. THe advantage that these two settings have (or had in the case of WHFB) is that so many books have been written, that at least a few of them explored the more sociological aspect of the setting. For example, I probably would never have been interested in 40k if it wasn't for the Necromunda and Inquisitor books. AOS, on that regard, is clearly lacking. I rebember reading a discussion on wether any of the books were giving indication about the economic, cultural and social life in AOS, and the consensus was that except for a few obscure phrases, it's barely touched. For me, this is the biggest flaw of the AOS setting. Maybe down the stretch it will be corrected, but right now, I think that AOS has done a very poor job on that point.

To each his own. I generally don't buy GW books because they're too expensive in my opinion, but all the podcasts and youtube people sum them up and discuss them and I enjoy the stories and staying informed of the plot.

One of my favourite things about AoS is the moving plot and sense of discovery. The game constantly has me asking, "What's next?" It's a different strategy than handing you the ultimate tome to the world and all its denizens. Perhaps one day those sort of books will come too.

On the economic stuff or about how weapons work or why does this model have no chest armour, it doesn't really register with me, up there with, "But when/how does the main character use the bathroom?" AoS is a larger than life, bridges made of millions of metallic birds, whole cities living on a giant moving worm, mythical setting. It's different from WFB and won't be everyone's cup of tea. That's all fine.

@streetsamurai

I think that is pretty accurate but disagree that AoS should be judged by a standard other than what it is meant to do. The AoS setting is first and foremost a canvas on which players paint epic battles for the obvious reason that, well, such is its purpose. It's well-suited to its role: a big open space space full of peril and drama. If AoS was a RPG, or if GW licenses a AoS RPG, the writers will need to flesh out more of the social structures.

@coldgaming

Yes, I am surprised to find myself wanting to know what is happening and what will happen, too. Getting back to the OP, that is one of the big reasons to get battletomes. But sure if you can't afford or don't want to pay for every single on, people will be discussing it online just like with the HH novels.

 streetsamurai wrote:
To be fair to AOS, I'd say that most 40k and WHFB books are also not very interesting for me, as they concentrate way too much on heroe's and battles. For me, the most interesting part of a setting is the "sociological" (for lack of a better word) aspect. THe advantage that these two settings have (or had in the case of WHFB) is that so many books have been written, that at least a few of them explored the more sociological aspect of the setting. For example, I probably would never have been interested in 40k if it wasn't for the Necromunda and Inquisitor books. AOS, on that regard, is clearly lacking. I rebember reading a discussion on wether any of the books were giving indication about the economic, cultural and social life in AOS, and the consensus was that except for a few obscure phrases, it's barely touched. For me, this is the biggest flaw of the AOS setting. Maybe down the stretch it will be corrected, but right now, I think that AOS has done a very poor job on that point.

Pretty clear from this that you require a setting capable of sustaining an RPG. Which both 40K and Fantasy had. As the result of years of publishing, specific requirements to support non-battle settings (Necromunda & Mordheim) as well as supporting immersive RPG (WFRP & Inquisitor), and that point of view is fine - one man's poison, and all that.
That said... I liked the Old World, and I like the 40K universe.
But the idea that these settings were both lovingly crafted as such or just popped into existence with depth is an utter fallacy.
They were amalgamated, retconned, rewritten, added to and subtracted from over decades, and major advancements only came when GW or a licensee had something to sell, or in the days pre-BL an author stumbled on an idea that GW wanted to integrate.
I think as well that people playing the 'I'm not gonna buy those books' card may have a slightly rose-tinted view of a) the number of books they've bought and digested concerning the setting over the years, and b) the amount of info they absorbed from discussions on the internet, chatting with friends/opponents/etc.
Whether you think AoS has good or bad fluff is an opinion, but to expect it to have the detail or emotional attachment of either of the other settings after 9 months is incredibly naive.

RoperPG wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
To be fair to AOS, I'd say that most 40k and WHFB books are also not very interesting for me, as they concentrate way too much on heroe's and battles. For me, the most interesting part of a setting is the "sociological" (for lack of a better word) aspect. THe advantage that these two settings have (or had in the case of WHFB) is that so many books have been written, that at least a few of them explored the more sociological aspect of the setting. For example, I probably would never have been interested in 40k if it wasn't for the Necromunda and Inquisitor books. AOS, on that regard, is clearly lacking. I rebember reading a discussion on wether any of the books were giving indication about the economic, cultural and social life in AOS, and the consensus was that except for a few obscure phrases, it's barely touched. For me, this is the biggest flaw of the AOS setting. Maybe down the stretch it will be corrected, but right now, I think that AOS has done a very poor job on that point.

Pretty clear from this that you require a setting capable of sustaining an RPG. Which both 40K and Fantasy had. As the result of years of publishing, specific requirements to support non-battle settings (Necromunda & Mordheim) as well as supporting immersive RPG (WFRP & Inquisitor), and that point of view is fine - one man's poison, and all that.
That said... I liked the Old World, and I like the 40K universe.
But the idea that these settings were both lovingly crafted as such or just popped into existence with depth is an utter fallacy.
They were amalgamated, retconned, rewritten, added to and subtracted from over decades, and major advancements only came when GW or a licensee had something to sell, or in the days pre-BL an author stumbled on an idea that GW wanted to integrate.
I think as well that people playing the 'I'm not gonna buy those books' card may have a slightly rose-tinted view of a) the number of books they've bought and digested concerning the setting over the years, and b) the amount of info they absorbed from discussions on the internet, chatting with friends/opponents/etc.
Whether you think AoS has good or bad fluff is an opinion, but to expect it to have the detail or emotional attachment of either of the other settings after 9 months is incredibly naive.

Well, that'S pretty much what I said. Still, I don't think it's much of an excuse for the AOS universe shallow sociological background. Hell, Malifaux 1st edition rulebook (who is made by a tiny companie) did a much better job to present this aspect of the setting.

I would say Hawk Wargames DZC book does a better job as well, and that is the work of just one man. I just don't think this is a necessity for every miniatures game. For example, DZC takes some pains over it because it is a sci fi game and needs that "grounded" feel. AoS is the absolute opposite of grounded. It isn't high fantasy so much as high-flying fantasy or even dude I'm high fantasy. It just doesn't matter whether Azyr has a banking system where Vandus Hammerhand maintains his checking account. But that sort of thing might be very important in a skirmish miniatures game about looting ruins for treasure and storing it away in vaults.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Well, that'S pretty much what I said. Still, I don't think it's much of an excuse for the AOS universe shallow sociological background. Hell, Malifaux 1st edition rulebook (who is made by a tiny companie) did a much better job to present this aspect of the setting.

...because the scale of the game dictates that level of detail was needed. Malifaux is a game of gangs, so you need a setting that works for gangs.
Would have been no point in the Malifaux setting being about conflicts between huge armies, because that's not what the game was trying to replicate.
Size of company is irrelevant in that situation.

I think an interesting comparison is to Tolkien's writing of Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit.

AOS seems to be lacking the Hobbits, or something like the hobbits point of view.

Its like they wrote the story just about the Elves (Stormcasts) fighting Mordor (Khorne) and just forgot about the little people which we, as the readers, relate to.

In 40k many novels start from the view of an insignificant person and their view of the Space Marines. How awed they are by them etc. AOS needs some of this.

I completely disagree that these considerations are not as important for a mass battle game than for a skirmish game. FOr me, the battles feels meaningless when such iinformation is absent. But, at this point, I think that we all have made our arguments clear enough, and we have irreconcilliable differences on the matter.

Peace