I HATE that. One of the absolute best things about AoS, and the main appeal for me, is being allowed to take whatever the hell I feel like without being controlled by some arbitrary number... Making a cool fluffy list that I can use in any context, be it narrative or tournament. This goes totally against that. I don't give a gak if some douchebag took five Nagash, I'll simply not play him, whereas now I'll be forced to conform to this army building standard even when playing against people who are not TFG. It feels like the world of possibilities I imagined for AoS just shrank a bit... Very disappointed.

 Mymearan wrote:
I HATE that. One of the absolute best things about AoS, and the main appeal for me, is being allowed to take whatever the hell I feel like without being controlled by some arbitrary number... Making a cool fluffy list that I can use in any context, be it narrative or tournament. This goes totally against that. I don't give a gak if some douchebag took five Nagash, I'll simply not play him, whereas now I'll be forced to conform to this army building standard even when playing against people who are not TFG. It feels like the world of possibilities I imagined for AoS just shrank a bit... Very disappointed.

This is only for matched play, which is one of three game types in the book.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I HATE that. One of the absolute best things about AoS, and the main appeal for me, is being allowed to take whatever the hell I feel like without being controlled by some arbitrary number... Making a cool fluffy list that I can use in any context, be it narrative or tournament. This goes totally against that. I don't give a gak if some douchebag took five Nagash, I'll simply not play him, whereas now I'll be forced to conform to this army building standard even when playing against people who are not TFG. It feels like the world of possibilities I imagined for AoS just shrank a bit... Very disappointed.

This is only for matched play, which is one of three game types in the book.

Which is, as has been discussed ad nauseum, likely to be the playstyle that gets shoved down your throat because people are too incompetent to play without points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS.

Indeed - it is the direct opposite of the original AoS "Take whatever you want" spirit.

GOOD.

Yeah sure it is, if you can't actually handle being a reasonable adult and talking with your opponent before a game.

Or just like points systems, as opposed to being 'incompetent'. Let's not be needlessly insulting.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I HATE that. One of the absolute best things about AoS, and the main appeal for me, is being allowed to take whatever the hell I feel like without being controlled by some arbitrary number... Making a cool fluffy list that I can use in any context, be it narrative or tournament. This goes totally against that. I don't give a gak if some douchebag took five Nagash, I'll simply not play him, whereas now I'll be forced to conform to this army building standard even when playing against people who are not TFG. It feels like the world of possibilities I imagined for AoS just shrank a bit... Very disappointed.

This is only for matched play, which is one of three game types in the book.

Which is, as has been discussed ad nauseum, likely to be the playstyle that gets shoved down your throat because people are too incompetent to play without points.

Yeah sure it is, if you can't actually handle being a reasonable adult and talking with your opponent before a game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Yeah sure it is, if you can't actually handle being a reasonable adult and talking with your opponent before a game.

Hey! Stop saying everything I say a moment before I say it!

 ImAGeek wrote:
Or just like points systems, as opposed to being 'incompetent'. Let's not be needlessly insulting.

Unfortunately, my impression of those who are clamoring for this points system is that they never really tried playing games without points beyond maybe one or two where they just showed up for a match, got stomped by someone who was playing some ridiculous collection of models, and then decried the whole thing as ruined.

So yeah. I'm going to be fairly irritable, as this was a method of play I really enjoyed. I LIKED being able to run games of a few Heroes against a horde of rank and file, without people worrying about the points values of the things.

I do NOT like the fact that the mere mention of points has already caused certain individuals in my local gaming group to start talking about how they're going to min/max.

Better go burn your army and put it on Youtube then...

So what of us who dont have all your free time to spend discussing playing before we actually get to play? Or packing our entire collections to haul to a game store to then discuss with an opponent what we will and will not be playing with?

As stated before, its just one mode of playing...

It's "one mode of playing" that is going to, likely, be the promoted avenue for tournaments--which means here in the US, it's going to be "the" go to mode for players who think they're tournament gamers where they'll try to get gaming groups to accept just those rules.


Do you really think that you're going to see "Narrative Gaming Days" anywhere but a GW shop? Or "Campaign Leagues" anywhere but a GW shop?

I'd like to think you would. It probably depends on the group in the area. I'm sure you'll get it some places, and other places will jump onto the 'competitive' side. Trouble is you can't win, there's always going to be people who prefer a different way of playing. At least GW are giving you three different styles of play in the book.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's "one mode of playing" that is going to, likely, be the promoted avenue for tournaments--which means here in the US, it's going to be "the" go to mode for players who think they're tournament gamers where they'll try to get gaming groups to accept just those rules.


Do you really think that you're going to see "Narrative Gaming Days" anywhere but a GW shop? Or "Campaign Leagues" anywhere but a GW shop?

Not if you keep up like this.
If this is how narrative players respond to something that doesn't even affect them, then yeah you probably wont see anything come up because nobody will want to play with an opponent who demonizes a part of the game they have no interest in, all because they have a belittled view of another group of gamers. It's a disgusting opinion, and frankly disappointing to see in this day and age.

If you don't like points, don't play points.
If you don't like total freedom, don't play total freedom.
If you don't like scenario, don't play scenario.
But keep your negatively derivative assesment of other players capacities and interests out of it. There's no excuse, need or reason for that kind of talk.

Kanluwen, you probably won't see 'narrative game days' or 'narrative tournaments' any more or less than you do now. And if you really are so scared that the big bad points are going to ruin your hobby, be the change you want at your local store and promote narrative play. Much more productive for you and everyone else involved.

I also believe that points will become the standard. In my FLGS noone was playing the open style. Everyone was using one form of points or another. Whether it be Azyr Comp, PPC, SCGT, or any one of a dozen other styles, points were the rule. Not saying you can't play open. It's just that open requires either a lot of discussion if you have just met and don't know the meta for the store, OR a tight group with shared values where players have played with each other enough to be able to self balance quickly. If you are part of that tight group, then no worries for you. You and your group can keep on playing the way you like. But if you just moved to the area, being able to show up at the FLGS and just throw down 2000 points of models is much much easier than having to learn what is acceptable locally and then negotiating a game. Ain't no one got time for that!

He does have a solid point. Points will be the standard. Playing the other two methods will require a good solid degree of negotiation and you will likely never see any events that do not use the competitive format, which can be annoying if you don't want to play that style.

Where I am we have a large narrative campaign going (twenty-six players on the roster) but over 3/4 of them want official GW competitive structure when its released integrated immediately.

But this is an age old debate going back twenty plus years.

I promote the hell out of narrative campaigns, but it is not an easy thing to do because a lot of players demonize non-tournament style playing as they pertain to public events.

That being said, these competitive restrictions seem very light. Its not the same as core used to be. You can still min/max elite forces they just have to share the same army wide keywords.

But playing without points already does require a solid amount of negotiation to be even remotely workable. Even the people who hate points say that. They hold it up as a plus. Points/force org/whatever for Age of Sigmar simply makes it more accessible for pickup games, something it's pretty terrible at. It just entrenches narrative or unstructured or whatever you want to call it play firmly in the area they always said it was for, which is to say two friends in a basement having a good time tossing dice and eating pretzels.

Events were already using 'points' - even Warhammer World was restricting what you could bring (by models or wounds, I can't remember except thinking 'yup, sucks to be a horde army fan').

I'm not arguing that.

However the slippery slope is returning to the days of nothing but battleline using internet meta lists day in and day out which I also feel is very bad for retention in this hobby.

I don't see how simply providing an army building system automatically leads to cutthroat min-maxed Planet Bowling Ball games everywhere. Not everyone who wants an organized system or restrictions is interested in that. I honestly prefer points and restrictions because I feel it helps me develop and keep to a theme.

Narrative campaigns can integrate points fairly easily; in fact, I don't see why the two concepts should be antithetical at all. It certainly makes it easier to involve non Stormcast/Bloodbound/Nurgle/Sylvaneth players in the 'official' plotline, if that's what you're playing out.

Lets try not to keep beating the SUPER dead horse here on points vs no points.

Its ONE of the multipule game systems they offer , and being in the US, our store is good on both. Most are excited for points after many of us ave played game and game and game and was structure to it.

Played many hordes vs heroes among other missions and very excited to try something new.

None of us play tourneys so points don't have any sort o min/max issue

Glad tis is coming out. As said, if you don't like points and want the take whatever for your games, nothings stopping that.

 Kanluwen wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I love that. Essentially "core" units are required so people can't take forces of nothing but monsters and heroes. Plus, depending on numbers this strikes me as a perfect balance of "just restrictive enough" where you need to make army-building considerations, but keeps the spirit of AoS in terms of allowing a lot of flexibility.

That's a big leap from a small blurb.

All it does is tell you that there is a classification called "Battleline units", of which you must include a minimum number of them based on the size of the game. And that the types of Battleline units differ if you're doing a "pure" army with just one keyword.

Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

Yes Kanluwen we know you don't like points systems in AoS.

That's why it's optional.

I did a tournament in my local GW shop with no points but wounds. Low attendancy, but was fun.

Had a game with a TFG playing Nagash and chain-summoning Morghasts. Was horrible.

Am going to play again with the guys from the tournament, and steer clear from the Nagash guy (Who also played the dwarf mass cannon army)

I didn't play the 8th edition fantasy, but I don't mind this idea: battleline units sound interesting, and I don't think they'll limit some fluffy armies...

Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

No one has done this in the thread...

 ImAGeek wrote:

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

No one has done this in the thread...

Read in between the lines. They have. Not a debate here. Want to talk about it, lets go to the AoS forums and we all can rehash this again.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS.

Indeed - it is the direct opposite of the original AoS "Take whatever you want" spirit.

Totally right, this is definitely a great new feature in how it departs from the launch philosophy. And is exactly why so many people are excited or interested about it.

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

Wanting a clear and obvious method to build balanced forces is nothing to do with 'proving superiority'.


A system that expects players to work out what match-up will make for a fun game only works when both players have a more or less equal understanding of how the game works and how all of the units function. Adding a more structured system as an option helps out players looking for an easier way to build more or less balanced forces.

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

Wanting a clear and obvious method to build balanced forces is nothing to do with 'proving superiority'.
A system that expects players to work out what match-up will make for a fun game only works when both players have a more or less equal understanding of how the game works and how all of the units function. Adding a more structured system as an option helps out players looking for an easier way to build more or less balanced forces.

Putting it succinctly, I feel that they did a fairly good job of that with the keyword system.

It's not hard to tailor your games based upon "Hey let's play only one Monster/Priest/Warmachine/whatever keyword you want to restrict".

Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Yeah, limit yourself to 3 heroes. Great for the Ogor player. Sucks for the Skaven player.

Points are going to be a godsend!

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

This is so untrue I debated whether or not to report it as trolling.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

This is so untrue I debated whether or not to report it as trolling.

Yeah, that was pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

Right, because you are the model for fun? You just sound bitter about something that doesn't even affect you. Why do you have to prove that points is worse than no points? What compels you to judgmentally look down on other players?

A thread on this would probably be horrible read too, but please make one if you want to talk about how your way of playing is better.

Could we PLEASE get back on topic.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

This is so untrue I debated whether or not to report it as trolling.

Rather than making accusations of trolling, how about explaining how it is "so untrue"?

Because when I'm sitting here browsing through the app, I'm looking at the majority of Heroes on foot being 5 Wounds with saves tied to their keywords or the appearance of the model/wargear.
Wizards tend towards 6s, Heroes that appear lightly armored[helm, chestplate, or a combination of the two] tend towards 5s, fighty Heroes clad in the same amount of armor with shields or a greaves/gauntlets tend towards 4s, and it takes getting into massively plate clad Heroes like the Stormcast or Chaos heroes before you start seeing 3s.

Monster Heroes or Monsters in general tend to start at saves of 4s, and depending on the size of unridden/ridden monsters they tend towards capping out at 12 Wounds. You do have exceptions(most notably, Archaon with his 20 Wounds and his 3+ save or the Star-Drake with its 16 Wounds and 3+ saves), but the trend is 4s with 12s. I mean hell, even the Celestant-Prime(one of the units considered to "break the game") is 3+ with 8 Wounds and restricted to 1 per army.

For me, full-throttle, cut-throat games with a sporting opponent are the best way to have fun with miniatures.

I'm just excited for this. Basically a bonus to army building for thematic forces. Yes please! This could be awesome!

Has anyone heard anything to get their hopes up for some new Tzeentch (*chough*pleaselordofchangeprettyplease*chough*) stuff, or at least when/if they'll start selling the Silver Tower models separately?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

This is so untrue I debated whether or not to report it as trolling.

Rather than making accusations of trolling, how about explaining how it is "so untrue"?

Because when I'm sitting here browsing through the app, I'm looking at the majority of Heroes on foot being 5 Wounds with saves tied to their keywords or the appearance of the model/wargear.
Wizards tend towards 6s, Heroes that appear lightly armored[helm, chestplate, or a combination of the two] tend towards 5s, fighty Heroes clad in the same amount of armor with shields or a greaves/gauntlets tend towards 4s, and it takes getting into massively plate clad Heroes like the Stormcast or Chaos heroes before you start seeing 3s.

Monster Heroes or Monsters in general tend to start at saves of 4s, and depending on the size of unridden/ridden monsters they tend towards capping out at 12 Wounds. You do have exceptions(most notably, Archaon with his 20 Wounds and his 3+ save or the Star-Drake with its 16 Wounds and 3+ saves), but the trend is 4s with 12s. I mean hell, even the Celestant-Prime(one of the units considered to "break the game") is 3+ with 8 Wounds and restricted to 1 per army.

Stop talking nonsense, Kan.

Gyrocopter vs Steamtank
Skaven Pack Master vs Skarr Bloodwrath

They are not of equal power at all.

It's irrelevant anyway.

If you want to build your forces with a Warmachine, a unit of infantry and a hero, the existence of an optional points system doesn't stop you from doing that even if you decide to use it .

 insaniak wrote:
It's irrelevant anyway.

If you want to build your forces with a Warmachine, a unit of infantry and a hero, the existence of an optional points system doesn't stop you from doing that even if you decide to use it .

If the optional points system is tied to you sticking within your subfactions, it actually will.

There are no units of Infantry within the Ironweld Arsenal subfaction for Grand Alliance: Order. The subfaction consists of Warmachines and Heroes only.

Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Chopxsticks wrote:
Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Keywords are tied to the subfactions, at least if the way this is explained here in their blurb is accurate.

 Kanluwen wrote:

If the optional points system is tied to you sticking within your subfactions, it actually will..

Unless you choose to ignore that requirement.

Rules that exist can be ignored... But can still be used by those who want to use them.

Rules that don't exist don't benefit anyone.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:
Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Keywords are tied to the subfactions, at least if the way this is explained here in their blurb is accurate.

I don't see how this says you're limited to a subfaction? It says if you stick to one subfaction, certain units become battleline units that wouldn't be if you mixed and matched from different subfactions.

I rather like it this still means I can take stormcast for my devoted of sigmar army I am planning. I will have a lot of flagellants since they are most likely core. For matched play it's still rather open in the theme of the grand alliances.
Still my GW store is looking more forward to narrative play.

It'll be interesting to see how this works with battalions

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:
Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Spoiler:

Keywords are tied to the subfactions, at least if the way this is explained here in their blurb is accurate.

I don't see how this says you're limited to a subfaction? It says if you stick to one subfaction, certain units become battleline units that wouldn't be if you mixed and matched from different subfactions.

How can you not see how this limits you to a subfaction?

To use a theoretical example based upon what little they gave us(Ironjawz Brutes become Battleline if you take purely Ironjawz) as an example under the Matched Play system:
Little Billy wants to play an Ironjaw and Moonclan army for a game. His opponent wants to play "Matched Play". Little Billy wants to take Brutes but no Ardboys.

Little Billy cannot do this army, as Brutes only become Battleline units when taking pure Ironjawz. He has to take Ardboys in order to "unlock" his Brutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

motski wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how this works with battalions

I would assume that the battalions were taken into consideration for this, since you're already required to take a relatively high amount of units within the battalions that are likely to become touted as "Battleline" units.

Little Billy can take some battleline Moonclan, then, can't he? It doesn't say each subfaction must bring battleline units.

In the teaser, anyway. Maybe it'll say differently later. We don't know. But from what it tells us...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:
Did the rules say subfaction? all that little poster said was Theme, are themes subfactions?

Why are we back to fighting about rules that we dont even know exist yet...

Spoiler:

Keywords are tied to the subfactions, at least if the way this is explained here in their blurb is accurate.

I don't see how this says you're limited to a subfaction? It says if you stick to one subfaction, certain units become battleline units that wouldn't be if you mixed and matched from different subfactions.

How can you not see how this limits you to a subfaction?

To use a theoretical example based upon what little they gave us(Ironjawz Brutes become Battleline if you take purely Ironjawz) as an example under the Matched Play system:
Little Billy wants to play an Ironjaw and Moonclan army for a game. His opponent wants to play "Matched Play". Little Billy wants to take Brutes but no Ardboys.

Little Billy cannot do this army, as Brutes only become Battleline units when taking pure Ironjawz. He has to take Ardboys in order to "unlock" his Brutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

motski wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how this works with battalions

I would assume that the battalions were taken into consideration for this, since you're already required to take a relatively high amount of units within the battalions that are likely to become touted as "Battleline" units.

He has to take Ardboys to unlock the Brutes as a battleline unit yeah, but he can still use them if he doesn't go pure Ironjawz. They just aren't battleline in that case.

 Spinner wrote:
Little Billy can take some battleline Moonclan, then, can't he? It doesn't say each subfaction must bring battleline units.

In the teaser, anyway. Maybe it'll say differently later. We don't know. But from what it tells us...

Considering the fact that they talk about "Battlefield Roles" and then discuss "Battleline" units(which is the equivalent to Core it seems), I have a suspicion we're looking at something more like 40k's CADs than a big happy free for all from multiple factions.

Maybe. Maybe not. All we know is that you need to take Battleline units if you want to mix subfactions in a matched play army. Getting worked up about things that might or might not happens seems kinda...

Pointless.

Actually, it's a surprisingly flexible restriction, and I like it more the more I think about it.

Given how 40k currently works and they way they seemed to have set up AoS I'd bank on general battleline and other units within a Grand Faction opening other roles inside that grand faction (regardless of subfaction).

However, for those that love a specific subfaction, they have the option to take certain units as battleline if they stick to that subfaction.

We'll see but that's the way I'm thinking it's heading which is fine for me.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Given how 40k currently works and they way they seemed to have set up AoS I'd bank on general battleline and other units within a Grand Faction opening other roles inside that grand faction (regardless of subfaction).

However, for those that love a specific subfaction, they have the option to take certain units as battleline if they stick to that subfaction.

We'll see but that's the way I'm thinking it's heading which is fine for me.

Yah, it seems clear this is the intent TBH. But it's clear that right now all we can do is speculate. To me it sounds like a percent of the army have to be battle line units, before you can take none-battle line units. But then the question is, do you have to take certain battle line units, before you can take certain "elite" units?

-Could I take beastmen as battle line for my Chaos knights? Skavan as battle line for Beast-men Monsters? ect. (Any battleline units and any elite units.)

/OR/

-Do you need to take some Beastmen before unlocking chaos monsters? So many Warriors before unlocking knights? (I.E. Some elite units are linked to some Battleline units.)


All we realy know is that by sticking to a sub-faction you get to side-step the normal battle-line units and take something normally a elite unit for your battle-line.

If everyone could be polite that'd be great, rule 1 doesn't cease to exist in N&R. A few posters over the last 2 pages have been toeing it pretty hard

Talked to the FLGS today and they spoke to the rep recently. Storecopy of handbook should be at the FLGS who are doingthe campaign July 2nd (least ours is) so I cant wait. Gotta get the Ironjawz ready!

Can't wait to start planning out my Order army. I recently became fully painted too, so I think I am really going to enjoy this campaign!

 Bottle wrote:
Can't wait to start planning out my Order army. I recently became fully painted too, so I think I am really going to enjoy this campaign!

I'm rushing to get my stuff painted in time.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's a big leap from a small blurb.

Not really. It's a fairly logical inference based upon years of experience with GW writing rules.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

And GW are going to come around and force you to play this way, are they Kan?

As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

But not everyone is you, some people want a little structure in their game. This new system allows both.

Deal. With. It.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

And GW are going to come around and force you to play this way, are they Kan?

As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

Could you be more condescending? Attack the game, not the players.

 Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

And GW are going to come around and force you to play this way, are they Kan?

As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

Could you be more condescending? Attack the game, not the players.

But he is attacking the game.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

And GW are going to come around and force you to play this way, are they Kan?

As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

Could you be more condescending? Attack the game, not the players.

But he is attacking the game.

Oh really? So telling fellow adults to "continue playing kids plastic army men" and "bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises" ís not at all a comment on the players? Come on. I thought we were past this stuff after the first 6 months.

Indeed.

We really don't need the insults and/or digs at other posters.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

But not everyone is you, some people want a little structure in their game. This new system allows both.

Deal. With. It.

Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

You don't have to be so rude about it.

I sympathise but at the same time... if the argument is "I don't like them adding structure, because people want to play that way and are less likely to play the way I want if it's available"... isn't that a bit unreasonable?

Davor wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

But not everyone is you, some people want a little structure in their game. This new system allows both.

Deal. With. It.

Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

You don't have to be so rude about it.

You're making claims without evidence to back your claims up. I see people play unbound all the time.
It just so happens to be the younger kids that do so. And it works fine for them.
And this isn't like 40k at all. The clearly established 'official' play system is no wounds. There are people who play without any kind of balancing metric, despite there existing 4 point systems. Add a new '5th system' isn't going to suddenly convert all those players into playing with points.
When 6th edition dropped, the established medium was points and force orgs.
When Age of Sigmar dropped, the established medium became, and has been, no points.
So comparing 40k's unbound popularity to Age of Sigmar’s open play system is a fairly flawed comparison.

And when I see someone crying over spilt milk rather than being an adult and just pouring themselves another glass, I think a little bluntness is called for. Does the soul good.

Let me know when this crap stops and I can check these threads again for N&R stuff, thx.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's "one mode of playing" that is going to, likely, be the promoted avenue for tournaments--which means here in the US, it's going to be "the" go to mode for players who think they're tournament gamers where they'll try to get gaming groups to accept just those rules.

I doubt people who "think they're tournament gamers" are playing AoS now, anyway. Unless maybe they are playing with one of the current fan point systems in which case they are not playing your version of AoS already.

Do you really think that you're going to see "Narrative Gaming Days" anywhere but a GW shop? Or "Campaign Leagues" anywhere but a GW shop?

If there is actual interest in Narrative Gaming, yes. As far as Campaign Leagues I've played such for years with the old WFB system, points and all so I don't see any problem. I don't give a damn about "tournament play" I just want to be able to walk into a store and play a pick-up game without spending an hour negotiating both army lists so I welcome a points system.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you really think that you're going to see "Narrative Gaming Days" anywhere but a GW shop? Or "Campaign Leagues" anywhere but a GW shop?

If players really want it...Yes. If not then loss of it isn't issue since it wasn't wanted in the first place.

People play how they want. If something isn't played then guess what? It means people prefer to play otherwise.

While there is wisdom in that, it does not reveal the whole story.

People tend to migrate to where the majority of players are.

Based on several polls conducted, roughly 3 in 5 want and require points and competitive environments.

The majority will often get their way in terms of what store events are run.

For the 2 in 5 that want narrative gaming days, they are up that creek without a paddle in many instances. Its not a gross imbalance... 3 in 5 is pretty close in terms of a split... but its enough that doing the 2 in 5 events won't be seen as worth the trouble by a lot of event coordinators.

If you are in the 2 in 5 you are going to have to set up these events yourself if you want to see them done.

Davor wrote:
Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

I can see why this analogy gets brought up, but it isn't a good one. Unbound was a force organization option introduced into a game with already established points and force organization. AoS is getting a points and force organization option introduced when it does not have any; it's the opposite of unbound in how it's being introduced.On top of that this pointed option is coming in alongside two others, and is being introduced to the community of AoS which has a different mix of mindsets towards structure than 40k or WHFB. While I don't see people's fears being unfounded, I also think the level of concern is too high given the situation we have.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Davor wrote:
Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

I can see why this analogy gets brought up, but it isn't a good one. Unbound was a force organization option introduced into a game with already established points and force organization. AoS is getting a points and force organization option introduced when it does not have any; it's the opposite of unbound in how it's being introduced.On top of that this pointed option is coming in alongside two others, and is being introduced to the community of AoS which has a different mix of mindsets towards structure than 40k or WHFB. While I don't see people's fears being unfounded, I also think the level of concern is too high given the situation we have.

I know it's not a good one, but all I ment is a lot of 40K players will shun anyone who brings an unbound army, even today. So if someone wants a Bring What you want Game, people will shun the because they are not using points. That is what I ment. Even when GW makes the rules OFFICIAL people still ignore them.

@auticus, if 3 out of 5 want to play competitive play and 2 out of 5 want to play narrative play, surely the 2 players who like narrative play can play each other :p

Jokes aside, I do understand your point of view. I honestly think a fluffly narrative game with fully painted armies on amazing terrain is the pinnacle of the hobby. But it does take a lot of work to get there and having it as the default game mode for pick up play isn't great imo. I never feel all that motivated to come up with the story if the opponent's army is all grey plastic - and I don't feel like PUGs are a great place to think up a narrative on the spot. I would love to do a full campaign, but realistically as I play all my AoS in a PUG environment I am going to have lots more fun playing competitive and tactical games where the fun isn't too affected by unpainted armies or not having a backstory to it.

 auticus wrote:
While there is wisdom in that, it does not reveal the whole story.

People tend to migrate to where the majority of players are.
[...]

While I agree with your point, I think there is a stronger pull - People tend to migrate to where path of least resistance - And having to come to an agreement with your fellow player, before you can start a game takes effort. Setting up a narrative event, or just a narrative game, takes more effort than a "pick-up game with a random scenario or maelstrom-type missions & objectives".
So the path of least resistance favours points, and since people do tend to gravitate to what others are doing, as you said, could lead to a case where non-narrative, pick-up games with points will become the norm.

Now whether not that is a bad idea depends on your taste, but personally I think it's good with a super easy way to get a game going. But I really, really hope that GW continues to heavily support the narrative-driven game-types, more than any other type, but I don't have my hopes up too high. Still a lot of positive surprises have come from GW lately, so anything can happen.

but realistically as I play all my AoS in a PUG environment I am going to have lots more fun playing competitive and tactical games where the fun isn't too affected by unpainted armies or not having a backstory to it

Which is sadly why narrative style games will never be a popular thing, because it takes a lot more work to get them to succeed as the default environments I find are as you described.

last week leaked WD on thursday .

This week that is interesting, we will have to wait more days :(

Davor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Davor wrote:
Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

I can see why this analogy gets brought up, but it isn't a good one. Unbound was a force organization option introduced into a game with already established points and force organization. AoS is getting a points and force organization option introduced when it does not have any; it's the opposite of unbound in how it's being introduced.On top of that this pointed option is coming in alongside two others, and is being introduced to the community of AoS which has a different mix of mindsets towards structure than 40k or WHFB. While I don't see people's fears being unfounded, I also think the level of concern is too high given the situation we have.

I know it's not a good one, but all I ment is a lot of 40K players will shun anyone who brings an unbound army, even today. So if someone wants a Bring What you want Game, people will shun the because they are not using points. That is what I ment. Even when GW makes the rules OFFICIAL people still ignore them.

Why are you, if I may ask, even one of the loudest voices not letting this discussion die down? You've admitted openly all over the AoS forums that you hate the fluff, think its stupid, don't want to learn correct facts when people tried explaining elements of the lore to you, etc...

I feel like we've moved this topic beyond and sensible debate, and we just have a couple folks being really adversarial and just getting off on keeping unnecessary fighting going. A couple of the "points or bust" folks can be a little intense, and a couple of the "points are for imbeciles and I wish death on them" folks are comically over-the-top... and the result is just a toxic discussion when people should be more excited about a game which was struggled by a lot of metrics, suddenly having a lot more potentially interested eyes on it, and a company magic an effort to support said game, and grow its community.

There is a net win here if people will allow it... but instead poisoning the well just ensures people will keep saying away from AoS... points or no.

Wasn't replying to you NTN there. You are the one who is bringing it up now. I can't reply to someone who has quoted me? I wasn't even arguing with Ninthmusketeer. I thought we were having a good discussion between us.

Davor wrote:
Wasn't replying to you NTN there. You are the one who is bringing it up now. I can't reply to someone who has quoted me? I wasn't even arguing with Ninthmusketeer. I thought we were having a good discussion between us.

Place for that is here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/32.page

Lets try and stick to news

If it makes you people who hate the intro of points feel better. Most of us who want points would rather play whfb. We are just trying to polish the turd that is sigmar. You hate points we hate sigmar together we hate everything.

On topic sigmars groupies will win cause they cost so damn mich and gw will want sigmarines to be the poster boys kids love op super heroes. Hell chaos and ork arnt even a threat in sifi fantasy warhammer anymore they are just place holders for how bad ass sigmarines are.

OgreChubbs wrote:
If it makes you people who hate the intro of points feel better. Most of us who want points would rather play whfb. We are just trying to polish the turd that is sigmar. You hate points we hate sigmar together we hate everything.

On topic sigmars groupies will win cause they cost so damn mich and gw will want sigmarines to be the poster boys kids love op super heroes. Hell chaos and ork arnt even a threat in sifi fantasy warhammer anymore they are just place holders for how bad ass sigmarines are.

Probably shouldn't speak for everyone wth comments like 'most of us would rather play whfb'.

Ey yall got any more of dem Sylvaneth leaks?

I wasn't aware of when "most" equaled "all".

Overall still excited for points. I'm pumped to get to pull out fantasy models again. And 4 pages of rules with a couple of data sheets is my friend!

OgreChubbs wrote:
If it makes you people who hate the intro of points feel better. Most of us who want points would rather play whfb. We are just trying to polish the turd that is sigmar. You hate points we hate sigmar together we hate everything.

On topic sigmars groupies will win cause they cost so damn mich and gw will want sigmarines to be the poster boys kids love op super heroes. Hell chaos and ork arnt even a threat in sifi fantasy warhammer anymore they are just place holders for how bad ass sigmarines are.

Then play WHFB. Points in AoS are for people who wanted to play AoS but were put off by a lack of a balancing mechanism. I swear, half of what you say doesn't make any sense.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I wasn't aware of when "most" equaled "all".

Overall still excited for points. I'm pumped to get to pull out fantasy models again. And 4 pages of rules with a couple of data sheets is my friend!

It will be interesting to see what they add in the general's handbook.

New picture found it on grand alliance community.




Now this text is rumors from /tg take it with a grain of salt but the image is real. From grand alliance. Props to Bass924.


In addition to the above pic, here are the rest of the rumors so far courtesy of /tg/:

"All units have an assigned role.
Leader, Battleline, Behemoth, Artillery, no role.
Depending on points you play you are required/limited on number of units of each type you can take. Lets say we play 1000pts battle.
In that case you are required to take
2+ Battleline units
1-4 Leaders
0-2 Behemoths
0-2 Artillery
Any number of no role units

Some units have both types so they take up both slots at once.
Some units can become battleline if you take specific leader



Somehow I missed the part about summoning while taking photos but as far as I remember it works along the lines:
We play 1000 pts battle
You can decide to spent any of those points on summoning. So lets say you take 700 points on field and 300 points are "held in reserve: as summoning.
You summon any unit within said 300 points limit later in game. Points are used for summon so no recycling.



Armies build entirely of one Alliance are given extra rule. Generals can take 1 extra ability out of 6 predefined ones. Also there are 6 artefacts that can be taken by heroes at no additional cost.



Each alliance has its own set of
1 Battle Trait
6 Command Traits for your general
6 Artefacts that "any (non-unique) hero can be given one..."

Battle traits are
Death: For each wount or mortal wound suffered by DEATH unit within your army that is within 10" of your General or another Hero from your army, roll a die. On a 6 or more the wound is negated.
Destruction: Roll a dice in your hero phase for each unit from your army that is within 6" of General or another Hero from your army. The unit can move a number of inches equal to the dice roll, as if it were movement phase, but cannot run. This does not affect their ability to move again later in the turn.

Chaos: Roll a dice when you pick a Chaos unit to attack in combat that is within 8" of general or other your hero. On a roll of 6 you can add 1 to all hit rolls for the unit in that phase.
Order: You can re-roll battleshock tests (in battleshock phase) for friendly Order units that are within 12" of general or other hero in your army.



(order artifacts. chose one, no roll)

1. Attack in combat before anyone else (one use potion)
2. Improve Rend by 1, not for mounts
3. +1 Damage for one weapon
4. -1 to To Hit for enemies you wounded (for rest of battle)
5. Once per battle -1 to Hit for all enemies agains model with this artefact
6. Heal 1 wound in each of your hero phases. "


Points costs getting leaked:

" Prime 360
Judicators 160pts per 5
Liberators 100pts per 5
vexillor 200pts
heraldor 120pts
venator 120pts
Celestant /on dracoth 100/220
Prosecutors hammers/javelins 100/80pts per 3models
Retributors 220 per 5
Stardrake 500/600pts
Drake cav 240pts per 2 models with concussors as exception at 280

Nagash is 900
Archaon is 700

Arielle is 620

New unit names are Tree Revenants and one other type of Revenants 100 pts/5 both
and Kurnoth Hunters (or something like that) 180pts/3

Kairos 300
Lord of Change 260
Great Unclean 240
Skarbrand 400
Bloodthirsters 280-360 depending on version
Verminlord 300
Keeper of Secrets 280"

NO POINTS or battlefield roles for any forge world units in the book.

Plus ironjaws pic attatched got posted.




End of post.

Now take some of this info with a GRAIN OF SALT. I think the images are true for sure though.

It really looks like they are giving very rough points totals - a unit of 5 Brutes is the same as a unit of 20 - which I think is excellent. It preserves the negotiating factor of AoS and makes it harder for WAAC to 'hide behind the points' as well as gives GW a margin of error. Also rules of 1 kill most of the game-breakers. Sucks for summoning players though, its basically an alternate deployment that you have to roll for now :/

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It really looks like they are giving very rough points totals - a unit of 5 Brutes is the same as a unit of 20 - which I think is excellent. It preserves the negotiating factor of AoS and makes it harder for WAAC to 'hide behind the points' as well as gives GW a margin of error. Also rules of 1 kill most of the game-breakers. Sucks for summoning players though, its basically an alternate deployment that you have to roll for now :/

That assumes the points are not for each set of min unit size taken. I'd assume that is the case if judicators and the like are x points per 5.

It simply balances the most powerful and annoying summons: weaker troops as skeletons and zombies (the ones actually needing summoning or methods to remain on the field) can still double up their number with some lucky summon rolls, and I don't think non-spell abilities toat summon creatures are included. Surely it stops the chain-resummoning from Slanns, and the most annoying demon/death summoning shenanigans.

I think we are going to incorporate the three rules of one into our games at our GW store for sure. I really like them

And of course, Tzeentch gets punished again for being Tzeentch. TWO entire warscroll battalions are now useless thanks that first Rule of One (Fatesworn Warband, in which all heroes can cast Arcane Bolt; and the Chaos Warband, in which units who wipe out an enemy unit can cast Arcane Bolt).

I thought Tzeentch was getting some love this summer, but evidently GW is still dumping on them.

I'm intrigued by the mention of the "Kurnoth Hunters". That seems like we're going to see something ala Kurnous' followers...a whole unit of Orions would be pretty great.

OgreChubbs wrote:If it makes you people who hate the intro of points feel better. Most of us who want points would rather play whfb. We are just trying to polish the turd that is sigmar. You hate points we hate sigmar together we hate everything.

On topic sigmars groupies will win cause they cost so damn mich and gw will want sigmarines to be the poster boys kids love op super heroes. Hell chaos and ork arnt even a threat in sifi fantasy warhammer anymore they are just place holders for how bad ass sigmarines are.

Ironically I love points. Never once did I say I dont like points but how the only way to play would be with points and for people who like the way it is now will not be able to do it.

Every bit of those rules has me excited and feels like exactly what I wanted... my only thought being, for tournament/competitive games we'll need to clarify the unit min/max for x points rule.

I think the intent is for it to mean, a min unit of these costs "x" and you may buy that many increments of said unit up to a max? Without playing it though I can't be sure.

Otherwise, who wouldn't always take max units?

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Every bit of those rules has me excited and feels like exactly what I wanted... my only thought being, for tournament/competitive games we'll need to clarify the unit min/max for x points rule.

I think the intent is for it to mean, a min unit of these costs "x" and you may buy that many increments of said unit up to a max? Without playing it though I can't be sure.

Otherwise, who wouldn't always take max units?

People who can't afford to buy all those models? A max-sized unit of Brutes costs US$200.

Even if their intent is that it costs 180pts regardless of whether you have 5 or 20 models, I'm sure tournaments and people who want fair, evenly matched games will consider them 180pts per 5 model increments.

I'm quite looking forward to this book.

So for the Brutes for example, as I'm reading it, its 180Pts for 5 brutes. I could keep taking a extra 5 for another 180, max unit size is 20 guys for 720. OR I could take 4/5 man units of brutes for the same 720

Those leaks are good so far.

So battalions have points cost beyond the base cost of the units, or instead of?
We'll probably have to wait to see, because unless I missed something it doesn't explain battalion costs so we'd just be speculating...

Rihgu wrote:
So battalions have points cost beyond the base cost of the units, or instead of?
We'll probably have to wait to see, because unless I missed something it doesn't explain battalion costs so we'd just be speculating...

Its most likely an additional cost, like all of the other comps add costs for the battalions as well.

Yeah, I'm going to suggest to my group that the first rule of 1 be changed to everything BUT arcane Bolt, partially because of the tzeentch stuff and also because 9\10 the only things that cast it are things that literally have no other thing to cast, atleast as far as I can tell :/.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
And of course, Tzeentch gets punished again for being Tzeentch. TWO entire warscroll battalions are now useless thanks that first Rule of One (Fatesworn Warband, in which all heroes can cast Arcane Bolt; and the Chaos Warband, in which units who wipe out an enemy unit can cast Arcane Bolt).

I thought Tzeentch was getting some love this summer, but evidently GW is still dumping on them.

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth this summer.

 Swampmist wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to suggest to my group that the first rule of 1 be changed to everything BUT arcane Bolt, partially because of the tzeentch stuff and also because 9\10 the only things that cast it are things that literally have no other thing to cast, atleast as far as I can tell :/.

I would probably include Mystic Shield, as well. Hardly a game-breaking spell.

Eh, Shield allows for save stacking, which can be broken even without 1+ saves. 2+ rerollable LizardWarriors with immunity to rend -1, for example.

 Swampmist wrote:
Eh, Shield allows for save stacking, which can be broken even without 1+ saves. 2+ rerollable LizardWarriors with immunity to rend -1, for example.

This. But I agree that arcane bolt should be spammable; its hardly game breaking and is a good balancing mechanic against super-elites that anyone has easy access too.

Also, derp on the points costs. Pretty sure I misinterpreted that -.-

Awesome! Looks exactly like SCGT but with bigger numbers.

I agree that Arcane Bolt should be spammable. At least it makes that identical Skaven spell now useful lol.

The biggest hit for Mystic Shield is only having one across your entire army each battleround!

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Every bit of those rules has me excited and feels like exactly what I wanted... my only thought being, for tournament/competitive games we'll need to clarify the unit min/max for x points rule.

I think the intent is for it to mean, a min unit of these costs "x" and you may buy that many increments of said unit up to a max? Without playing it though I can't be sure.

Otherwise, who wouldn't always take max units?

People who can't afford to buy all those models? A max-sized unit of Brutes costs US$200.

FEAR NOT! We all will be able to afford these models soon! British Pound at an all time low now! I wish I could buy stuff off GW's site using that currency....

Chopxsticks wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Every bit of those rules has me excited and feels like exactly what I wanted... my only thought being, for tournament/competitive games we'll need to clarify the unit min/max for x points rule.

I think the intent is for it to mean, a min unit of these costs "x" and you may buy that many increments of said unit up to a max? Without playing it though I can't be sure.

Otherwise, who wouldn't always take max units?

People who can't afford to buy all those models? A max-sized unit of Brutes costs US$200.

FEAR NOT! We all will be able to afford these models soon! British Pound at an all time low now! I wish I could buy stuff off GW's site using that currency....

Maybe now's a good time to get a FW army then? I think that's all done through pounds sterling. :p

So on the leaks so far, matched play is in-faction. No Ironjaws units count as compulsory 'battleline' unless "Ironjaws Allegiance", whatever that means.
Maybe the faction of your general?

RoperPG wrote:
So on the leaks so far, matched play is in-faction. No Ironjaws units count as compulsory 'battleline' unless "Ironjaws Allegiance", whatever that means.
Maybe the faction of your general?

I think it just means if you go for a "Destruction" army you will need battleline units from warscrolls outside of the Ironjawz (because there are none by default) but if you're Ironjawz only some units take on the Battlefield role so that you can play a legal army.

There are no Ironjawz warscrolls that are battleline by default but I think other units will be (for example Moonclan Grots).

 Bottle wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
So on the leaks so far, matched play is in-faction. No Ironjaws units count as compulsory 'battleline' unless "Ironjaws Allegiance", whatever that means.
Maybe the faction of your general?

I think it just means if you go for a "Destruction" army you will need battleline units from warscrolls outside of the Ironjawz (because there are none by default) but if you're Ironjawz only some units take on the Battlefield role so that you can play a legal army.

There are no Ironjawz warscrolls that are battleline by default but I think other units will be (for example Moonclan Grots).

Would the 'Ardboys (black orcs) not count as battleline?

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
So on the leaks so far, matched play is in-faction. No Ironjaws units count as compulsory 'battleline' unless "Ironjaws Allegiance", whatever that means.
Maybe the faction of your general?

I think it just means if you go for a "Destruction" army you will need battleline units from warscrolls outside of the Ironjawz (because there are none by default) but if you're Ironjawz only some units take on the Battlefield role so that you can play a legal army.

There are no Ironjawz warscrolls that are battleline by default but I think other units will be (for example Moonclan Grots).

Would the 'Ardboys (black orcs) not count as battleline?

Only in an Ironjawz only army.

Points system sounds really good, looking forward to the campaign even more now! Cant wait to see Sylvaneth since it seems they will be coming before the handbook.

This and Cameron gone, today is a good day!

You know, I definitely agree that summoned units should cost points, but I don't think 1/1 is a good ratio. There is no guarantee the unit will ever actually see the table top. I'd like it better if summoned units were a little cheaper.

Chopxsticks wrote:
Better go burn your army and put it on Youtube then...

So what of us who dont have all your free time to spend discussing playing before we actually get to play? Or packing our entire collections to haul to a game store to then discuss with an opponent what we will and will not be playing with?

As stated before, its just one mode of playing...

In my experience this "free time" before starting a game has usually taken less than 2 mins for random pick up games. People seem to generally go for having fun over building stupid stomp lists, even the few who bring a lot of stuff and a bunch of powerful stuff around here have actually been reasonable when I say what I have and played around with that instead of going all out.

It's one of those situations where it's probably only going to go bad if they're a jerk. At least that's been my experience so far.

 EnTyme wrote:
You know, I definitely agree that summoned units should cost points, but I don't think 1/1 is a good ratio. There is no guarantee the unit will ever actually see the table top. I'd like it better if summoned units were a little cheaper.

I think a 1:1 ratio is for the best. Summoning on the first turn is very easy to pull off, and let's you deploy within 9" of the enemy straight away (unless your opponent deploys more than 3" off the front line). With 3D6 charges (like the Morghast Archai) it makes turn 1 charging alpha strikes a strong tactic with even less drawbacks if the units become cheaper for being summoned.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Every bit of those rules has me excited and feels like exactly what I wanted... my only thought being, for tournament/competitive games we'll need to clarify the unit min/max for x points rule.

I think the intent is for it to mean, a min unit of these costs "x" and you may buy that many increments of said unit up to a max? Without playing it though I can't be sure.

Otherwise, who wouldn't always take max units?

People who can't afford to buy all those models? A max-sized unit of Brutes costs US$200.

It is worse then that, aswell

Gore gruntas 180 points for 3 - 12. Which is 12 for 180 points so 15 points per model

Gore fist 120 points for 3 - 5 units of 3 or more gore gruntas...... So 90 gore gruntas 120 points $30 per model.

The fists formations are all likewise. Endless hordes for the people who bought the books I guess. Hey new moto for AoS

AoS where if you have the money you can win.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Gore fist 120 points for 3 - 5 units of 3 or more gore gruntas...... So 90 gore gruntas 120 points $30 per model.

As already noted, the points listed for Battalions are most likely in addition to the unit cost. So three units of Gore Gruntas (each having 3-12 models) at 180 points each plus 120 points for the Battalion is 660 points minimum.

 Ghaz wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Gore fist 120 points for 3 - 5 units of 3 or more gore gruntas...... So 90 gore gruntas 120 points $30 per model.

As already noted, the points listed for Battalions are most likely in addition to the unit cost.

so 120 points for 2 more wounds on 1 model and move 15" once per game? Well thats usless. Also I just reread the pics and no where does it say that so thats people just guessing?

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Gore fist 120 points for 3 - 5 units of 3 or more gore gruntas...... So 90 gore gruntas 120 points $30 per model.

As already noted, the points listed for Battalions are most likely in addition to the unit cost.

so 120 points for 2 more wounds on 1 model and move 15" once per game? Well thats usless. Also I just reread the pics and no where does it say that so thats people just guessing?

The points listed are for the Battalions. The Battalions don't include the units necessary to make the Battalion. Its has more support by the rules than the assumption you're making.

 Ghaz wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Gore fist 120 points for 3 - 5 units of 3 or more gore gruntas...... So 90 gore gruntas 120 points $30 per model.

As already noted, the points listed for Battalions are most likely in addition to the unit cost.

so 120 points for 2 more wounds on 1 model and move 15" once per game? Well thats usless. Also I just reread the pics and no where does it say that so thats people just guessing?

The points listed are for the Battalions. The Battalions don't include the units necessary to make the Battalion. Its has more support by the rules than the assumption you're making.

Actually it does tell you how many are in the fist aka battalion I am looking at it right here. A gore fist is 3-5 units of gore gruntas. Gore gruntas 3 or more models make a unit.

And where do you get those Gore Gruntas? From the Gore Grunta Warscroll. They're not built-in to the Gore Fist Battalion as you're implying.

 Ghaz wrote:
And where do you get those Gore Gruntas? From the Gore Grunta Warscroll. They're not built-in to the Gore Fist Battalion as you're implying.

I am not implying anything but dirct quoting from the iron jawz book.

It says gorefist / battalion. Consist of

A gorefist consists of the following units

3-5 units of gore gruntas


Gore gruntas

A unit of gore gruntas consist of 3 or more models.
Some units of goregrunts are armed with

Direct quotes.

Can't wait for the Generals Book! Seems odd they put it out after the campaign starts, but ...

Not understanding the confusion on Gore Gruntas. You get 3 models for 180 points, so 60 points a dude.

Max you can have in a SINGLE unit is 12 models of Gore Gruntas, so 720 points.

It is NOT 12 guys for 180 points.

As stated in the same spoiler post, Stormcast are X points per 5 guys or 3 guys. Same applies to this.

This isn't a assumption. They are not going to put all the time and effort into completive play, have a world wide event, and a full book on every army to make it so random still.

As for the book release, its before the event. Stores get it as a store copy before the event, 2 weeks before. Lets you look at it, pick a army, get interested, build and paint. Then the book comes out about a week after the event for the general public to own, but the store will have owned a copy 3 weeks before.

Oh - must have been something I missed...

Good to know!

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Oh - must have been something I missed...

Good to know!

well i just looked through all 65 pages and it is never mentioned except from someone saying it is probly what they mean. Same guy who is saying gorefist is not telling you what units are in it.

So either use the pics that are shown with whats written down for info or someones best guess. Cause gamesworkshop would never can something and have it fail cough aos cough.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Oh - must have been something I missed...

Good to know!

well i just looked through all 65 pages and it is never mentioned except from someone saying it is probly what they mean. Same guy who is saying gorefist is not telling you what units are in it.

So either use the pics that are shown with whats written down for info or someones best guess. Cause gamesworkshop would never can something and have it fail cough aos cough.

They weren't talking about the gorefist debate you're having, rather the part of the previous post talking about the fact that the book is available early for stores taking part in the campaign.

 Swampmist wrote:
Eh, Shield allows for save stacking, which can be broken even without 1+ saves. 2+ rerollable LizardWarriors with immunity to rend -1, for example.

And that's without save-stacking. Saurus Guard, near a Seraphon Hero, prayed over, and with one casting of Mystic Shield, get the 2+ rerollable already. :-p Yeah, i'm all for untethering Arcane Bolt from the one-off limit, but no way will I be ok with Mystic Shield being unlocked unless its expressly also amended to "one per unit".

See, this actually makes me even sadder, because I would have loved a 40K-ish game(which this new version of AoS seems to be) in the WHF setting, but the months of "points and people who like them are the dumz" rhetoric and the way GW tossed aside WHF as an IP then took the piss out of its fans as a farewell has totally soured things.

I keep having ideas for cool little WHF forces you can do in a skirmish system that just aren't viable in a block-movement game, and then I remember that doing them would require dealing with the new setting(because I don't know anyone who both plays AoS and prefers WHF) and that pathetic "har har, mental health is a perfect subject for ridicule in a social setting!" rule and it just strangles all my enthusiasm.

@OgreChubbs stop trolling.

It's 180 points for every 3 Goregruntas.

The max size unit you can make is 12. (720 points)

The Gorefist Battalian is 120 points just to unlock the Battalian ability (or do you really want to argue it's going to be 180 points for 1 goregrunta unit but 120 for 3 lol?).

So bare bones that battalion is going to cost 660 points ((180x3)+120) and maxed out will cost 3720 points ((720x5)+3).

 Bottle wrote:
@OgreChubbs stop trolling.

It's 180 points for every 3 Goregruntas.

The max size unit you can make is 12. (720 points)

The Gorefist Battalian is 120 points just to unlock the Battalian ability (or do you really want to argue it's going to be 180 points for 1 goregrunta unit but 120 for 3 lol?).

So bare bones that battalion is going to cost 660 points ((180x3)+120) and maxed out will cost 3720 points ((720x5)+3).

It does not say that anywhere, so you are making things up it says min 3 max 12, 180 points. You cant make things up and say anyone who disagrees is a troll. But I am moving on troll are making up random rumours because they like to which is what trolling actually is.

Quick final comment.

120 points for a free 15 inch move and 1 model has 2 more wounds
40 points for bringing a whole unit back from the grave once a turn.

It doesn't say it no, but it also doesn't say it your way. We don't have all the information, but one scenario is much more likely to be correct.

Actually scrap that, the rumours do say it:
'Judicators 160pts per 5
Liberators 100pts per 5 '

Its not going to work like that for some units but not for others.

 ImAGeek wrote:
It doesn't say it no, but it also doesn't say it your way. We don't have all the information, but one scenario is much more likely to be correct.

Actually scrap that, the rumours do say it:
'Judicators 160pts per 5
Liberators 100pts per 5 '

Its not going to work like that for some units but not for others.

This

 cyberjonesy wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
It doesn't say it no, but it also doesn't say it your way. We don't have all the information, but one scenario is much more likely to be correct.

Actually scrap that, the rumours do say it:
'Judicators 160pts per 5
Liberators 100pts per 5 '

Its not going to work like that for some units but not for others.

This

eier the other book is completely different or it is the same format which would be a min - max and then the points. The picture of the book is clear in that.

So either the order book is in a completely different format where it says each unit is 5 models and blah point and for destro it is completely different or it was an example saying 5 of them min is blah ammount of points.

Anyways we are talking in circles time will show who is right who is wrong I hope I a, but we will see.

Anyone find 240 pts for a Great unclean one as a hell of a bargain ?
This thing does everything : shoot , rend, please don't use this term like this on Dakka. Reds8n , cast spells , ward save, regain wounds each turn and buff his army...

Was this mentioned already? From War of Sigmar https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/900

Small teaser for all of you.

I have confirmed that summoning works as I said yesterday. You pay points only for bringing new units to battlefield so undead are safe with their standards returning models previously slain in battle.

Deep striking units are same as now.

Rules like phoenix returning on a 4+ work as written, you dont pay summon points for bringing it back to life, its part of model cost you pay at the start.

In addition to new Sylvaneth units there are also new units for orks and some renamed units for ogres in new yet unrevealed battle tome

Hard to tell if it's a bargain if we don't know the scale of the points. All we have to compare it to is a handful of orcs.

If you compare the spoiled points and the SCGT points, you will notice that they are the same. GW clearly used that as a basis and then multiplied everything by 20. Sometimes they modified the SCGT points by plus or less 1, but the 2 points systems are really too similar to think that they have no correlation.

 Yodhrin wrote:
See, this actually makes me even sadder, because I would have loved a 40K-ish game(which this new version of AoS seems to be) in the WHF setting, but the months of "points and people who like them are the dumz" rhetoric and the way GW tossed aside WHF as an IP then took the piss out of its fans as a farewell has totally soured things.

I keep having ideas for cool little WHF forces you can do in a skirmish system that just aren't viable in a block-movement game, and then I remember that doing them would require dealing with the new setting(because I don't know anyone who both plays AoS and prefers WHF) and that pathetic "har har, mental health is a perfect subject for ridicule in a social setting!" rule and it just strangles all my enthusiasm.

Who cares about the "official" setting? I'm quite happy to ignore it, and there's no reason you couldn't do the same. Your models are your own, as is their background and your own "head canon". I know you're overly concerned about what the "official rules" and so forth say, but there's no need to concern yourself with it if you dislike it, even if you were to play in a GW store. Perhaps see if there's a local club in your vicinity where you can play some informal friendly games using the upcoming, pointed AoS skirmish rules within the WHFB setting.

Neronoxx wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If you compare the spoiled points and the SCGT points, you will notice that they are the same. GW clearly used that as a basis and then multiplied everything by 20. Sometimes they modified the SCGT points by plus or less 1, but the 2 points systems are really too similar to think that they have no correlation.

If this is true...

 cyberjonesy wrote:
Anyone find 240 pts for a Great unclean one as a hell of a bargain ?
This thing does everything : shoot , rend, cleaning up in melee, cast spells , ward save, regain wounds each turn and buff his army...

...it explains this. Monsters and heroes are more points-efficient in SCGT than units.

Just curious, but does anyone know what the reasoning behind this is?

I would guess its because units are far superior to monsters and heroes. The lack of "toughnes" and inability to join/hide in units makes it plain to se how the basics -number of attacks and wounds, of a unit makes most monsters rather poor choises, and lone heroes really woulnerable. Add to that the many many nice special rules units get, that monsters mostly dont.
/Generally speaking from my limited experience of AoS.

What's the point of summoning and characters who summon when the cost is the same as cost of fielding?

OgreChubbs wrote:

 cyberjonesy wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
It doesn't say it no, but it also doesn't say it your way. We don't have all the information, but one scenario is much more likely to be correct.

Actually scrap that, the rumours do say it:
'Judicators 160pts per 5
Liberators 100pts per 5 '

Its not going to work like that for some units but not for others.

This

eier the other book is completely different or it is the same format which would be a min - max and then the points. The picture of the book is clear in that.

So either the order book is in a completely different format where it says each unit is 5 models and blah point and for destro it is completely different or it was an example saying 5 of them min is blah ammount of points.

Anyways we are talking in circles time will show who is right who is wrong I hope I a, but we will see.

It looks to be set up the same as SCGT pools list. Which means the first page will explain everything we have been saying and the following pages will list the pools cost for each faction in the game. Go look at the SCGT pool list document for an idea.

Plumbumbarum wrote:What's the point of summoning and characters who summon when the cost is the same as cost of fielding?

18" move, Turn 1.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What's the point of summoning and characters who summon when the cost is the same as cost of fielding?

Do people in 40k ask why 'keep units in reserve to Deep strike in'?

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2016/06/24/brave-the-trials-of-sigmaron/

Step up now to face your destiny. Can you survive the Trials of Sigmaron and become one of Sigmar’s Stormcast Eternals? Join in this free gaming event at the Warhammer Age of Sigmar Open Day!

Individual heroes are transported to an arena in the Realm of Azyr in order to fight for the right to be a Stormcast Eternal. It’s a hero bash in an arena!

The Trials of Sigmaron is a free Warhammer Age of Sigmar gaming event being held at Warhammer World as part of the Warhammer Open Day on the 13th August. It’s also part of the Season of War Global Campaign, which means your games can go towards shaping the future of Warhammer Age of Sigmar!

With games happening all day, taking up to around 45 minutes each, you can play in as many games as you like, so long as there are spaces available.

Just bring with you any one hero model you like from the Warhammer Age of Sigmar range.
Choose if your hero is a warrior or a wizard, and they’ll use the profile on our special event warscroll – find it here: The Trials of Sigmaron Warscroll.
Choose your allegiance to either Order, Death, Destruction or Chaos and gain special rules as a result of this.
Sigmar himself has left gifts in the arena to help the heroes; earn mighty favour from the God-King himself!
If your hero survives the arena, register your victory in the Season of War campaign.
There will also be a leaderboard throughout the day, for you to see how your hero has done in comparison to everyone else.
A full event pack will be coming soon, but these are the essentials you need to know, so start planning your hero and get your ticket for the full Open Day now!

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Trials-of-Sigmaron-Warscrolls.pdf


If anyone does attend please take pics/start a thread for the event etc etc

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What's the point of summoning and characters who summon when the cost is the same as cost of fielding?

As i read it, there is a nice reason for that.
I decide not to deploy 300 points, but i'm not stating what i will summon. So you are playing with 300 points of side list, and can summon what you effectively need.

I was going to ask if anyone had any idea when we'd see the new Aelf stuff, when I saw this on FB:
https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/videos/488989241297874/

So looks like it could be July 2nd for pre-order?

 ImAGeek wrote:
I was going to ask if anyone had any idea when we'd see the new Aelf stuff, when I saw this on FB:
https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/videos/488989241297874/

So looks like it could be July 2nd for pre-order?

Haha, awesome! Rob Symes is awesome (I love his Bravery One podcast - even if it is "awful dross"). Guess this will be more family friendly though.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I was going to ask if anyone had any idea when we'd see the new Aelf stuff, when I saw this on FB:
https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/videos/488989241297874/

So looks like it could be July 2nd for pre-order?

The video is great and it seems GW is finally using the community correctly.

]

Megaboss on Maw Krusher seems awful expensive at 500+ pts though.

Individual heroes are transported to an arena in the Realm of Azyr in order to fight for the right to be a Stormcast Eternal.

(...)

Just bring with you any one hero model you like

(...)

Choose your allegiance to either Order, Death, Destruction or Chaos

So Sigmar is desperate enough to recruit daemonic Heralds, Plague Priests, Grot shamans and Vampires? A Gaunt Summoner is okay I guess (mutual visit of each others dungeon).

Well, at least there're great conversion opportunities if you win.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
..it explains this. Monsters and heroes are more points-efficient in SCGT than units.

Yeah one of the first things I noticed were that the heroes and monsters were vastly cheaper in this system than in azyr comp, and then I noticed they were basically SCGT points multiplied.

I am totally against the death of WHFB and the move to circular bases (why could they not include both!) but a points based skirmish game could get me trying AoS again, even if its just to have some good quick games of Fantasy where there isnt time for a full blown game of 8th or 9th edition.

I havent kept up to date with all the AoS news (other than to watch my favorate units go OOP) are the new competitive rules going to be free?

No they will be in the general's handbook.

The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

 Bottle wrote:
The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

It also gets you lots of crap that some people are never going to use.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

It also gets you lots of crap that some people are never going to use.

I know you're desperate for points Kan, but you might want to consider branching out and trying other game styles from time to time.

So this turned up on 4chan. Not sure what to make of it, but it is half the price of buying the models individually.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

It also gets you lots of crap that some people are never going to use.

Then some people probably won't buy it, which goes without saying. But there really is no reason to be such a sour sally.

excited for the book though. Points is nice but I wonder what else will be in there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chikout wrote:
So this turned up on 4chan. Not sure what to make of it, but it is half the price of buying the models individually.

Holy crap... I kinda like that...

Chikout wrote:
So this turned up on 4chan. Not sure what to make of it, but it is half the price of buying the models individually.

I like all those models so will probably be worth it.

Chikout wrote:
So this turned up on 4chan. Not sure what to make of it, but it is half the price of buying the models individually.

I like this a lot.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
See, this actually makes me even sadder, because I would have loved a 40K-ish game(which this new version of AoS seems to be) in the WHF setting, but the months of "points and people who like them are the dumz" rhetoric and the way GW tossed aside WHF as an IP then took the piss out of its fans as a farewell has totally soured things.

I keep having ideas for cool little WHF forces you can do in a skirmish system that just aren't viable in a block-movement game, and then I remember that doing them would require dealing with the new setting(because I don't know anyone who both plays AoS and prefers WHF) and that pathetic "har har, mental health is a perfect subject for ridicule in a social setting!" rule and it just strangles all my enthusiasm.

Who cares about the "official" setting? I'm quite happy to ignore it, and there's no reason you couldn't do the same. Your models are your own, as is their background and your own "head canon". I know you're overly concerned about what the "official rules" and so forth say, but there's no need to concern yourself with it if you dislike it, even if you were to play in a GW store. Perhaps see if there's a local club in your vicinity where you can play some informal friendly games using the upcoming, pointed AoS skirmish rules within the WHFB setting.

I give exactly zero gaks about what the "official rules" say, except the bits that encourage folk to shout abuse at each other and take the piss out of people with mental health problems. Not because I can't ignore them, but because either someone at GWHQ with grotesquely poor taste actually though they were being funny, or because they were a deliberate "up yours, buy the new stuff" to fans of WHF under the pretense of doing us a favour. Either way, it doesn't provoke any great desire to engage with the system.

And, contrary to what some people seem to assume, I'm not actually a drooling moron "I don't know anyone who'd play AoS who's also a WHF setting fan" was inclusive of everyone I've spoken to at local clubs. Largely because there's not many people playing AoS at local clubs, but still.

Is new stuff actually being discussed or are the stupid whiners complaining again just to sour all the good things coming from these releases?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

It also gets you lots of crap that some people are never going to use.

You can try kings of war you get to keep all the models your useing now aswell.

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
Is new stuff actually being discussed or are the stupid whiners complaining again just to sour all the good things coming from these releases?

Oh, is it that time when someone pretends not to have noticed the "Discussion" part of the N&R forum blurb so they can snark at others again?

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
Is new stuff actually being discussed or are the stupid whiners complaining again just to sour all the good things coming from these releases?

Oh, is it that time when someone pretends not to have noticed the "Discussion" part of the N&R forum blurb so they can snark at others again?

Been that way ever since ya joined the thread mate.
The discussion part of news and rumours applies to the topics at hand.
Discussion doesn't mean come into the thread and piss and moan about how AoS isn't WFB anymore, which is all you do either blatantly or in a roundabout fashion. If you want to have a 'discussion' in this thread, maybe try sticking to the topic at hand, which is news and rumours concerning Age of Sigmar.

AGAIN:

 Manchu wrote:
Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic.
This thread is for discussing new AoS releases; not for discussing AoS or GW generally.

Re: The Gorechosen game. Looks cool. Will probably pick it up if the game plays well.

/redacted

Chikout wrote:
So this turned up on 4chan. Not sure what to make of it, but it is half the price of buying the models individually.

Awesomeness. I have 1 of those 4 mini's, so it'll be nice to get the rest, and use the extra for conversion fodder.

Loving these boardgames that they've been releasing lately

 Bottle wrote:
The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

The owner of our local GW shop was already bragging about how amazing this book was (he saw it at it's presentation at HQ).

According to him, the new direction GW wants to go is: make it cheap if it's "mandatory" apparently. We'll see in the future I guess.

Oh man that Gorechosen looks like it has some promise as a smaller board game. Definitely looking forward to trying that out.

This would be awesome if it had the other Slaughter Priest, not the same one that the Silver Tower expansion has... but picture looks like the one with the two-handed axe.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
This would be awesome if it had the other Slaughter Priest, not the same one that the Silver Tower expansion has... but picture looks like the one with the two-handed axe.

Ya, its the Priest with 2 handed axe, he's also on the cover of the rulebook if you look closely

 Bottle wrote:
The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

Thats a shame:( I thought the whole thing with AOS was the free rules...

Will stick with 8th & 9th, might try KoW too.

Daston wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

Thats a shame:( I thought the whole thing with AOS was the free rules...

Will stick with 8th & 9th, might try KoW too.

The core rules and all the model rules are still free. You don't have to use the new rules if you just want to play like you can now. And £15 is pretty reasonable for 3 different ways to play.

Spiky Norman wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What's the point of summoning and characters who summon when the cost is the same as cost of fielding?

Do people in 40k ask why 'keep units in reserve to Deep strike in'?

Not the same. Not only I have to pay for, let's say, a necromancer but I also have to protect him or I loose the "reserve". Isn't summoning also limited in range in AoS?

I don't play AoS mind you, might be bs from me but it sounds limited, situational etc given the unchanged point cost.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Daston wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

Thats a shame:( I thought the whole thing with AOS was the free rules...

Will stick with 8th & 9th, might try KoW too.

The core rules and all the model rules are still free. You don't have to use the new rules if you just want to play like you can now. And £15 is pretty reasonable for 3 different ways to play.

Not to mention this is essentialy 3 rule sets, a couple of campaign supplements and points for all armies (even ones that haven't come out yet.)

What do we think will be the average points total for competition?

 KiloFiX wrote:
What do we think will be the average points total for competition?

2000 points for a medium sized game, similar to 100 SCGT pools, 20 Clash Pools or errr 2000 points from 8th :-)

Loving all these boxed game sets to get minis at sweet discount. Hoping one for any of my armies gets made.

Buys GW products, complains about 15 pounds or $30 Canadian. Mmmmm. Can't tell if serious or not.

Is GW trying to lower prices without actually lowering them?

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Is GW trying to lower prices without actually lowering them?

Pretty much, yes.

Davor wrote:
Buys GW products, complains about 15 pounds or $30 Canadian. Mmmmm. Can't tell if serious or not.

Its more, has a lot of WHFB stuff still dosn't like AoS rule set but willing to give the new points system a chance. I feel they should have done this to start with hence begrudged to pay money for a fix.

Fyreslayer points (thanks to war of sigmar)

Interesting that would mean the vulkite beserkers can be battleline units for ANY order army regardless of allegiance (it does not have the allegiance requirement).

GoreChosen looks interesting, if as just a cheap alternative source for Bloodbound figures. A shame I've got half already then! Will keep an eye out for it anyways.

Most interesting thing about that General's Handbook for me is the Path to Glory rules. I want an upgradable Chaos warband!

Fezza213 wrote:

Spoiler:

zamerion wrote:
Fyreslayer points (thanks to war of sigmar)

Interesting that would mean the vulkite beserkers can be battleline units for ANY order army regardless of allegiance (it does not have the allegiance requirement).

Well it make sense since if you have ur-gold they will fight for you. In the sliver tower story the fyreslayer was hired by a scholar but certain events caused him to end up as a doomseeker.

I'm assuming 5 to 30 means if you had 30 you would pay 480 points, or 16 points per guy after the first 5, and not something stupid like 80 points total for up to 30 guys. Otherwise they have fixed nothing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The General's Handbook is meant to be great value though. I think the podcasts mentioned it would be £15?

That gets you stacks of cool stuff - not just matched play but multiple campaign systems for narrative play and game modes for open play too.

It also gets you lots of crap that some people are never going to use.

I know, right? Like if you play Stormcast and it has rules for the Orruks that you'll never use. I can only assume that's what you mean. Still, GW are publishing it and it'll be official, so I'm sure you'll agree how awesome it all is once it's actually released.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chikout wrote:
So this turned up on 4chan. Not sure what to make of it, but it is half the price of buying the models individually.

Looks like another "not a discount or price decrease" bundle. Good, because I really do like those Khorne models but I'm fethed if I'm willing to pay the UK retail on them, let alone the AU$.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
Is new stuff actually being discussed or are the stupid whiners complaining again just to sour all the good things coming from these releases?

A little from column A and a little from column B.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

I give exactly zero gaks about what the "official rules" say, except the bits that encourage folk to shout abuse at each other and take the piss out of people with mental health problems. Not because I can't ignore them, but because either someone at GWHQ with grotesquely poor taste actually though they were being funny, or because they were a deliberate "up yours, buy the new stuff" to fans of WHF under the pretense of doing us a favour. Either way, it doesn't provoke any great desire to engage with the system.

And, contrary to what some people seem to assume, I'm not actually a drooling moron "I don't know anyone who'd play AoS who's also a WHF setting fan" was inclusive of everyone I've spoken to at local clubs. Largely because there's not many people playing AoS at local clubs, but still.

So here's the thing. This is a discussion thread about AoS News and Rumours. You've got your axe to grind, and you know what? I've got no problem with that in and of itself. However, there's an appropriate time and place, and you seem more interested in coming into the AoS threads to gak them up and argue with people than actually have any kind of actual discussion about the product. I'm no fan of Rob Lane, but I don't constantly go into the Mierce threads to gak them up. If you want to carry on carrying on about how GW and AoS insulted you, might I suggest starting up an off-site blog on Wordpress or Blogger. Not because the discussion has no place on Dakka, but if you have your own Blog then you're not beholden in any way to the rules or mods here, and you're pretty much your own master as long as you don't do anything illegal. better yet, you'll probably be able to connect with others who are unhappy with the direction of GW/AoS and that way you'll be able to have what is much more a discussion of like-minded people. Or connect with the 9th Age or KoW community. Paint models and share pictures of them. Basically, you should consider doing something more constructive and positive with your time.

Because quite frankly, constantly going into the AoS threads with no other intent besides wanting to complain about some stupid "jokey" bits of the free rules released over a year ago, complaining about everything else in a rather entitled manner and essentially causing trouble has made you into the bad guy here.

Fezza213 wrote:

Spoiler:

zamerion wrote:
Fyreslayer points (thanks to war of sigmar)

Interesting that would mean the vulkite beserkers can be battleline units for ANY order army regardless of allegiance (it does not have the allegiance requirement).

Yeah, we're sleazy like that, we work for anyone But interesting to see their points. I just bought a second runemaster and wonder how that will do compared to the 20 points cheaper GW has him compared to other Leaders. Points look fine given a 2,000 standard game. But I'll not be hurting to play open, narrative or matched or open w/player comp so...this Flameling is content.

 Orock wrote:
I'm assuming 5 to 30 means if you had 30 you would pay 480 points, or 16 points per guy after the first 5, and not something stupid like 80 points total for up to 30 guys. Otherwise they have fixed nothing.

Correct, the points listed is for your "min" unit amount, so 30 dudes is 480

Just wondering, why are some folks saying it's about double SCGT? Isn't Nagash in SCGT about 50 points? Or , am I totally off on that?

 KiloFiX wrote:
Just wondering, why are some folks saying it's about double SCGT? Isn't Nagash in SCGT about 50 points? Or , am I totally off on that?

People are saying its roughly 20x the SCGT pool prices. Nagash is actually about 16x, but others I checked quickly (Archaon, Orruk Megaboss on Maw Krusha) are 20x their pool price.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

I give exactly zero gaks about what the "official rules" say, except the bits that encourage folk to shout abuse at each other and take the piss out of people with mental health problems. Not because I can't ignore them, but because either someone at GWHQ with grotesquely poor taste actually though they were being funny, or because they were a deliberate "up yours, buy the new stuff" to fans of WHF under the pretense of doing us a favour. Either way, it doesn't provoke any great desire to engage with the system.

And, contrary to what some people seem to assume, I'm not actually a drooling moron "I don't know anyone who'd play AoS who's also a WHF setting fan" was inclusive of everyone I've spoken to at local clubs. Largely because there's not many people playing AoS at local clubs, but still.

So here's the thing. This is a discussion thread about AoS News and Rumours. You've got your axe to grind, and you know what? I've got no problem with that in and of itself. However, there's an appropriate time and place, and you seem more interested in coming into the AoS threads to gak them up and argue with people than actually have any kind of actual discussion about the product. I'm no fan of Rob Lane, but I don't constantly go into the Mierce threads to gak them up. If you want to carry on carrying on about how GW and AoS insulted you, might I suggest starting up an off-site blog on Wordpress or Blogger. Not because the discussion has no place on Dakka, but if you have your own Blog then you're not beholden in any way to the rules or mods here, and you're pretty much your own master as long as you don't do anything illegal. better yet, you'll probably be able to connect with others who are unhappy with the direction of GW/AoS and that way you'll be able to have what is much more a discussion of like-minded people. Or connect with the 9th Age or KoW community. Paint models and share pictures of them. Basically, you should consider doing something more constructive and positive with your time.

Because quite frankly, constantly going into the AoS threads with no other intent besides wanting to complain about some stupid "jokey" bits of the free rules released over a year ago, complaining about everything else in a rather entitled manner and essentially causing trouble has made you into the bad guy here.

Quoted for truth.

Ok, so some units have multiple roles. But do they count as having either or having both? Being able to take 4 heroes and then bring a leader/behemoth in would not be great. They should occupie 2 slots.

If you have a hero that is also a monster, then he will use a leader slot but also a behemoth slot.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Just wondering, why are some folks saying it's about double SCGT? Isn't Nagash in SCGT about 50 points? Or , am I totally off on that?

People are saying its roughly 20x the SCGT pool prices. Nagash is actually about 16x, but others I checked quickly (Archaon, Orruk Megaboss on Maw Krusha) are 20x their pool price.

Due to the rules of one, you will notice casters costing less than the SCGT equivalent. They have put some thought into importing that point system.

Just FYI :

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/694882.page#8737634

separate thread for the Gorechosen release,

we'll keep this for releases directly for the AoS game

as you were !

 KiloFiX wrote:


Megaboss on Maw Krusher seems awful expensive at 500+ pts though.

At a glance, i'm not horrified. He's a force-multiplier, and potentially devastating on his own. I've seen him played well, and ping-ponged between enough units to earn 500pts worth of space. :-p

500 pts is not nearly enough points. 500 points is a steep discount. The azyr formula had him coming out to be the equivalent of around 900 points.

 auticus wrote:
500 pts is not nearly enough points. 500 points is a steep discount. The azyr formula had him coming out to be the equivalent of around 900 points.

Oh, I guess he was at a super huge discount if playing with the simplified "Wounds" then since he was only about 7 Ard boys.

Is there a write up somewhere on what goes into the SCGT consideration? I realize it's not an exact calc and involves some play testing and adjustment.

 auticus wrote:
500 pts is not nearly enough points. 500 points is a steep discount. The azyr formula had him coming out to be the equivalent of around 900 points.

Is that the generic one though, or the character?

 Siegfried VII wrote:
If you have a hero that is also a monster, then he will use a leader slot but also a behemoth slot.

we don't know anything yet so be wary of speculation should someone provide you with a guess.

 VeteranNoob wrote:

 Siegfried VII wrote:
If you have a hero that is also a monster, then he will use a leader slot but also a behemoth slot.

we don't know anything yet so be wary of speculation should someone provide you with a guess.

If everything's based on "Battlefield Roles", all you have to do is look at the leaked stuff where it actually says "Leader" and "Behemoth" next to the Fyreslayers on Magmadroths.

Daston wrote:

Davor wrote:
Buys GW products, complains about 15 pounds or $30 Canadian. Mmmmm. Can't tell if serious or not.

Its more, has a lot of WHFB stuff still dosn't like AoS rule set but willing to give the new points system a chance. I feel they should have done this to start with hence begrudged to pay money for a fix.

That makes more sense now.

Ben on BadDice is answering questions within reason now. Maybe you can see the thread as a visitor. Or better yet, if you're not a troll or perpetually unpleasant whining gamer you can subscribe to the forum and comment and enjoy the very very very busy thread.

Via Ben on TGA; via Atias blog:

Via Ben @TGA

"There's some new unit names lists.

Sylvaneth, Bone Splitterz and Beastclaw Raiders.

There are 3 main campaign types.

Path to glory, Map, matrix and ladder.

PTG is a narrative army building campaign with ability upgrades and a race to most glory points

Map show how to play for area with location bonus in games.

Matrix is similar to the old iPad/digital campaign sets where 1 game effects the next.

Ladder is like a tournament style league system.

It's 169 pages.

No such thing as relics.

There are Artifacts and comment traits to go with Allegiance abilities.

Some cool old hammer throwbacks here! Chaos Runeblade, talisman of protection, clook of mist and shadows and cursed book. And lots more.

Points structure is similar to clash/SCGT. You buy a unit of models. You can duplicate them up to a max size per unit.

e.g. Judicators are 160 points for 5

Your unit size can be 5 to 20.

So you pay 160 for 1-5

320 for 6-10 and so on

if you only had 7 Judicators you can still field them but would pay for 6-10

There's a really cool house rule section that basically says you can use this book as a guide and do what you like with is.

Tournaments make tweek things or your own gaming group may prefer to introduce own house rules.

They site measuring to bases as one of these.

Army builds are similar to SCGT but you have restrictions on unit types.

At 2000 points.

1-6 leaders

3+ battleline

max 4 of each artillery and behemoths.

Some units are only battleline if whole army is in a single faction.

No silver tower units at first checking.

Once you have 1 leader and 3 battle line you can spend anything anywhere (so no max 50% style limits like in 8th)"

http://www.tga.community/forums/topic/1436-i-have-the-generals-handbook-ask-me-anything/?page=2

regards,
Lady Atia

I like what I see my GW store are going to make good use of the artifacts and alliance traits. Looking at the grand alliance thread GW is going all out with the community interaction.

From Heelenhammer Twitter (SCGT)

Mmmmm... that table-of-contents makes me hungry. I want to devour that book. Expanded Paths of Glory, points-mode, everything I could've wanted...

Apparently the only omission which makes me a touch sad, is not including points for the Silver Tower heroes. I really wanted to field Tenebrael Shard.

Don't care about this points or the General's Handbook; I just want the new Sylvaneth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Mmmmm... that table-of-contents makes me hungry. I want to devour that book. Expanded Paths of Glory, points-mode, everything I could've wanted...

Apparently the only omission which makes me a touch sad, is not including points for the Silver Tower heroes. I really wanted to field Tenebrael Shard.

You'll have to wait for Shadowkin, most likely.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Mmmmm... that table-of-contents makes me hungry. I want to devour that book. Expanded Paths of Glory, points-mode, everything I could've wanted...

Apparently the only omission which makes me a touch sad, is not including points for the Silver Tower heroes. I really wanted to field Tenebrael Shard.

That could be an inherent omission for a future release, but I doubt it. But I'm sure if you just multipy their SCGT cost by whatever mulitiplier GW usef no one will bat an eye.

I suppose it could be intentional of an omission so that they could represent future releases, but by all accounts there are some sneaky Orc and Ogre future releases already pointed in the book, so why not future-proof the Handbook as much as possible?

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I suppose it could be intentional of an omission so that they could represent future releases, but by all accounts there are some sneaky Orc and Ogre future releases already pointed in the book, so why not future-proof the Handbook as much as possible?

Maybe they don't intend for the Silver Tower stuff to see comp play until it is available for a general release?

And from everything said, it looks like it is stuff that is going to be in small books that might be released between now and the General's Handbook(which is supposed to be July 23rd for preorders) becoming officially available.

At 2000 points.

1-6 leaders

3+ battleline

max 4 of each artillery and behemoths.

The first new thing I did with AoS was get the Seraphon dino battalion with 3 dinosaurs, add in some old Korixgor to make the battalion complete. 2000pts is not meaning anything to me, any one any idea what that would cost (i.e. would that battalion be invalid except in a much larger game)?

It would probably be invalid, yeah. Unless somehow and someway the Ripperdactyls/Terradons are Battleline.

Man... I just can't wait to get playing, with hopefully a bigger assortment of players.

I know AoS can be a pretty divided community, and the points/no-points debate could get heated... And I know the game bears the burden of being tied to another beloved system whose death is an anchor around its feet... but man... it is a really, really, fun game, that I hope people give a fair shot to.

I went to a terrific KoW tournament yesterday, and its amazing how many people can't even give the game another evaluation look on its own merits, unable to separate the drama surrounding it, from the game itself.

Oh, @Puree, I wouldn't worry at all. My wife did the same (Thundersomething Host box, right?), and I think we figured out that it would all come out to 1000-ish points, meaning plenty of room for Battleline units, and the heroes that make Seraphon so, so good.

Edit: Ah, I forgot about the required slots aspect. But do keep in mind, 1. Its only for points-matched games, and 2. Things like Saurus Guard will inevitably be Battleline, so a single box of 15 from GW, will make the required three, five-man, minumum units.

The Exigrammaton has been revealed. Learn the names of your new god
1. Thou shalt Take and Holdeth
2. Blud and Glory cometh
3. Escalacio
4. Border War
5. Three Places of Might
6. Gifts from the Heavens

Yeeeah...the issue is that maximum of 4 Behemoths.

If a Magmadroth is considered a Behemoth, you can basically be assured that Carnosaurs and Stegadons are going to be Behemoths as well--which means the Thunderbeast Host is eating 3/4 of those slots in a 2000 point list.

It seems to be a single Behemoth slot per 500 points, so the Thunderbeast Host could not be done in 1000 points.

I was more thinking points wise, as 2000pts doesn't mean much to me yet. I was sort of assuming that anything not art/behemoth was batteline - but obviously I haven't kept up enough with rumors and maybe a lot of stuff is not in any category?

MM, that might mean monster infantry is not battleline? So that flesh eater court I'm working on might be fubarred as well, so I'd having to get stuff I just can't be arsed getting and painting :(

Points I can sort of live with, org limits makes me sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeeeah...the issue is that maximum of 4 Behemoths.

If a Magmadroth is considered a Behemoth, you can basically be assured that Carnosaurs and Stegadons are going to be Behemoths as well--which means the Thunderbeast Host is eating 3/4 of those slots in a 2000 point list.

It seems to be a single Behemoth slot per 500 points, so the Thunderbeast Host could not be done in 1000 points.

I'd be ok with that using 3/4 dino slots in that one formation. Assuming that 2000pts is not some uber big game where they wouldn't get used much. I.e. that formation would fit into what might be a 'standard sized game'

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeeeah...the issue is that maximum of 4 Behemoths.

If a Magmadroth is considered a Behemoth, you can basically be assured that Carnosaurs and Stegadons are going to be Behemoths as well--which means the Thunderbeast Host is eating 3/4 of those slots in a 2000 point list.

It seems to be a single Behemoth slot per 500 points, so the Thunderbeast Host could not be done in 1000 points.

I don't know... It's definitely looking like 500pts per Behemoth slot, but the Behemoth's themselves probably have much more variance in costs. If we're currently going with the "we multiply SCGT by 20x we get GH points", then the Thunderbeast Host looks like 800-ish points.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeeeah...the issue is that maximum of 4 Behemoths.

If a Magmadroth is considered a Behemoth, you can basically be assured that Carnosaurs and Stegadons are going to be Behemoths as well--which means the Thunderbeast Host is eating 3/4 of those slots in a 2000 point list.

It seems to be a single Behemoth slot per 500 points, so the Thunderbeast Host could not be done in 1000 points.

I don't know... It's definitely looking like 500pts per Behemoth slot, but the Behemoth's themselves probably have much more variance in costs. If we're currently going with the "we multiply SCGT by 20x we get GH points", then the Thunderbeast Host looks like 800-ish points.

You're looking at 320 points for an Auric Runefather on Magmadroth; up from 100 points base.

Figure around 200ish points for the simple fact that things are Monsters and 100 points for what would have been a "Fighty Lord".
So 2x Stegadons are likely to be 400 points base; with possible points for upgrades and around 320 for the Carnosaur Oldblood. So you're looking at 720 for just the big stuff or in that vicinity.

If it's 500 points per Behemoth slot AND Leaders mounted on Behemoths use both Behemoth and Leader slots--you cannot do the Thunderbeast Host sub-1500 points, unless they've got some kind of caveat that Warscroll Battalions ignore those restrictions(which just raises the question of what's the point of having the listings to begin with?).

Ah, I see what they're going for summoning then. Other than just alternative deployments, it's also for bypassing the max restrictions you have for leaders and behemoths.

Small scale heroes probably, but there's some opportunity to be had there in summoning multiple heralds maybe.

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
Ah, I see what they're going for summoning then. Other than just alternative deployments, it's also for bypassing the max restrictions you have for leaders and behemoths.

Small scale heroes probably, but there's some opportunity to be had there in summoning multiple heralds maybe.

I don't know about that - a lot of Summoning is not Heroes.

puree wrote:
I was more thinking points wise, as 2000pts doesn't mean much to me yet. I was sort of assuming that anything not art/behemoth was batteline - but obviously I haven't kept up enough with rumors and maybe a lot of stuff is not in any category?

MM, that might mean monster infantry is not battleline? So that flesh eater court I'm working on might be fubarred as well, so I'd having to get stuff I just can't be arsed getting and painting :(

Points I can sort of live with, org limits makes me sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeeeah...the issue is that maximum of 4 Behemoths.

If a Magmadroth is considered a Behemoth, you can basically be assured that Carnosaurs and Stegadons are going to be Behemoths as well--which means the Thunderbeast Host is eating 3/4 of those slots in a 2000 point list.

It seems to be a single Behemoth slot per 500 points, so the Thunderbeast Host could not be done in 1000 points.

I'd be ok with that using 3/4 dino slots in that one formation. Assuming that 2000pts is not some uber big game where they wouldn't get used much. I.e. that formation would fit into what might be a 'standard sized game'

@puree the leaked pics show dragon ogres and I believe more monstrous infantry as battleline only if you have the same allegiance. So I can finally go back 20 years and have an all minotaur army again (if we were using this book, otherwise I do what I want anyway) or all dragon ogre army or whatever.

 KiloFiX wrote:

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
Ah, I see what they're going for summoning then. Other than just alternative deployments, it's also for bypassing the max restrictions you have for leaders and behemoths.

Small scale heroes probably, but there's some opportunity to be had there in summoning multiple heralds maybe.

I don't know about that - a lot of Summoning is not Heroes.

Is it likely the Summoing effects abilities like Neferata's ability to make new Vampires by killing enemy heroes?

I made a link. 34 leaked photos with points values from the Handbook. Enjoy! http://imgur.com/a/gThul

 Mymearan wrote:
I made a link. 34 leaked photos with points values from the Handbook. Enjoy! http://imgur.com/a/gThul

I am enjoying this link immensely ;-)

Really interesting to see Behemoth =/= Monster in all cases and Artillery =/= Warmachine in all cases too. For example both a Hurricanum and a Steamtank are classed as Behemoths. Gyrocopters count as nothing (although the fact you can't battleline them means Ironweld Arsenal cannot be played as a stand alone faction - probably true for many of the subfactions).

So I can finally go back 20 years and have an all minotaur army again

Lol, I always had a dream as a kid of the all minotaur army (warhammer or whatever). I don't know why but I had thing for huge bull men back then as the alternative to Orcs and the like.

Some new names in there and legacy scrolls as well. I'm going to have to get this when released.

puree wrote:

So I can finally go back 20 years and have an all minotaur army again

Lol, I always had a dream as a kid of the all minotaur army (warhammer or whatever). I don't know why but I had thing for huge bull men back then as the alternative to Orcs and the like.

1994-8 had all metal Minotaur army. I liked variety and not ll monopose. Same thing with ogres.
But, I am really ok with these points if I end up using them which I'm sure I wil at some point, even if only to test game.

Skullhammer wrote:
Some new names in there and legacy scrolls as well. I'm going to have to get this when released.

Indeed pleasently surprised to see the old armies in as well as the new.

Well, that pretty much confirms Alarielles new model: Leader, Behemoth

Has anybody seen Tomb Kings in the General's Handbook?

Hi @MymearanMade, thanks for the images! Could you also scan the High Elves list? The older list from the original Age of Sigmar compendium for them...

At a glance, I see a ton of good, though I suspect the battleline requirement will quickly get min-maxed, with players figuring out the cheapest way to pay that tax, per Grand Alliance.

There are definitely more factions than I thought, that can't really claim "Allegiance" if it really means running 100% from within that list. Too many just don't have battleline units.

Likewise, wanting to include a Giant/Gargant in any Destruction army means breaking your Allegiance (for just one example), which makes me think either the Allegiance bonuses are minimal in practice, or some units will never ever be taken if they are something players will urgently want.

My wife is definitely lucky as she was already running pure Seraphon, but with all my lists made up, for example, of previously "Dark Elves", I am in a harder spot as that army was shattered into for different AoS ones. :-p

All in all... looking very solid though. I don't see anything which offends at first glance, though I suspect we'll be seeing A LOT of Abhorrant Ghoulking's on Terrorgeists. :-p


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, if scanners are taking requests, can we get some of the other Ogre units?

Hoping FW join in and add their own stuff.

Need to use my rogue idols :p

Will be waiting a while for a proper game though as alot of people in my group use plenty of FW models, including 2 chaos dwarf players.

Oh man, these are nice for rough values but the balance is as bad as feared from the looks of it. I laughed when I saw Be'Lakor at 240.

At a glance, I see a ton of good, though I suspect the battleline requirement will quickly get min-maxed, with players figuring out the cheapest way to pay that tax, per Grand Alliance.

As expected org charts screw me. Even my dark elves where I have based around 1 wound models have no battleline, which would force me to buy/make/paint models I just don't want to. I had half a mind to get the Saurus guard if I revisited them, so that might be doable, but I have no wish to do 30 ghouls to go with my other flesh eaters, nor more dark elves to go with my drow, and combining smaller groups of minis into armies so you don't have to keep collecting largely the same stuff makes it even harder in some cases. I am hoping that any battalion would be legal irrespective of org requirements so we can collect battalions and play them in any game (point limit allowing).

Saw this link that from the guy who has the book and had a Q and A which I saw from Wr of Sigmar. Not sure if it was posted here. Chaos points I think the person said. Sorry if it was posted already.

http://i.4cdn.org/tg/1466974639273.pdf

 Mymearan wrote:
I made a link. 34 leaked photos with points values from the Handbook. Enjoy! http://imgur.com/a/gThul

So Dwarf Miners are... free?

And should have guessed that Ironbreakers wouldn't be Battleline. My new army I was making currently amounts to

Unforged
Warden King
Runelord
2 units of 5 Ironbreakers (with standards, musicians, and champions)
2 units of 5 Irondrakes (with torpedoes)

Guess I'll need to grab a box or 2 of Longbeards to make it "legit", if I want to play with these rules.

(I do have a much larger Dwarven army, but for AoS I'm trying to use only 8th edition style Dwarfs, as I don't like the look of my warriors, thunderers, and cannon crew alongside them)

More new pics from Lady Atia HERE

I like that you can choose whether you roll for the Command trait or not; it allows you to design a character and give them fluffy rules, or to randomly roll when both players are happy to do it.

The inclusion of Bretonians in the leaks gives me hope that my Tomb Kings are usable in a pitched battle setup.

Fingers crossed.

Looks like they forgot the points value for Dwarf Miners?

puree wrote:

At a glance, I see a ton of good, though I suspect the battleline requirement will quickly get min-maxed, with players figuring out the cheapest way to pay that tax, per Grand Alliance.

As expected org charts screw me. Even my dark elves where I have based around 1 wound models have no battleline, which would force me to buy/make/paint models I just don't want to. I had half a mind to get the Saurus guard if I revisited them, so that might be doable, but I have no wish to do 30 ghouls to go with my other flesh eaters, nor more dark elves to go with my drow, and combining smaller groups of minis into armies so you don't have to keep collecting largely the same stuff makes it even harder in some cases. I am hoping that any battalion would be legal irrespective of org requirements so we can collect battalions and play them in any game (point limit allowing).

Rihgu wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I made a link. 34 leaked photos with points values from the Handbook. Enjoy! http://imgur.com/a/gThul

So Dwarf Miners are... free?

And should have guessed that Ironbreakers wouldn't be Battleline. My new army I was making currently amounts to

Unforged
Warden King
Runelord
2 units of 5 Ironbreakers (with standards, musicians, and champions)
2 units of 5 Irondrakes (with torpedoes)

Guess I'll need to grab a box or 2 of Longbeards to make it "legit", if I want to play with these rules.

(I do have a much larger Dwarven army, but for AoS I'm trying to use only 8th edition style Dwarfs, as I don't like the look of my warriors, thunderers, and cannon crew alongside them)

This is exactly why I didn't want org charts. People like you get screwed to reign in TFG, when the right course of action is simply to not play TFG. I will definitely try to get my group to agree to ignoring the org charts.

:O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O

SO

GOOD

Oh my god. Amazing.

Alarielle is stunning!

Well I gotta hand it to Geedubs, they managed to made a beetle look kinda badass.

Does Alarielle have the Spear of Kurnous or is it just a nod to the old WE stuff?

Looking great

and that Hamadreth may well make a great alternate 40K Hellbrute

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Looking great

and that Hamadreth may well make a great alternate 40K Hellbrute

I dunno. He looks awfully big for a dreadnought lol.

Wow...color me impressed!

Yeah. Okay. Those are awesome.

Oh yess giant bugs..goning to get that.

Any idea on release date?

Yes gotta love AoS new stuff!

That beetle is going to be mine! All mine!

Need to see prices, but looking good.

Looks good, but need better pics to be sure. Wonder if there will be some multi-kits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's settle it, they are definitvely going back to a monthly release rate


Automatically Appended Next Post:
wonder if this is going to be the whole release, cause it is weird that there is no clampack character

Anyone know if the required role - e.g. Battleline 2+ must be chosen from your specific Faction or chosen from any across your Grand Alliance?