this one is my favorite. the diseased, rotting skin looks so good, especially because it doesn't feel like it overlaps with Nurgle (as it otherwise might have)
but also, these don't feel overcomplicated. there's a lot of detail, but i imagine that once you start batch painting these guys, it's going to go quickly
stahly wrote: Wow. The old Skaven Clanrats were pretty great models at their time, but the new ones make them feel dated. Great poses, lots of character.
I thought I was pretty happy with the old ones until I saw the new ones. Really like these and I really liked the old ones anyway.
Shadow Walker wrote: New rats are good but I wonder if there will be options to not have models with shield in right hand, I hate it.
Yeah, I really want to know what options they have. Like are the two that are double-handing their weapons different from the others? Do they have to have shields? Any options to swap heads or arms around? I assume not with the starter set, but the I am more wondering about the eventual solo release.
Shadow Walker wrote: New rats are good but I wonder if there will be options to not have models with shield in right hand, I hate it.
Yeah, I really want to know what options they have. Like are the two that are double-handing their weapons different from the others? Do they have to have shields? Any options to swap heads or arms around? I assume not with the starter set, but the I am more wondering about the eventual solo release.
If they are like Liberators than it does not matter if you give them shields or not, same profile.
GaroRobe wrote: It depends on if the starter models end up being the ones that get a wider release
Termagants were starter ones with an upgrade sprue so it may be similar here. Or simply rats will have no options that matter in game, and what you have in starter is what you will get later in a unit box.
I like these clanrat sculpts a lot. Hope to see going through the same good level of transition. And rat ogres.. that should be too hard though, as they were too dated, especially compared to other kits of the same era.
The warp weapon guy is too cartoony. Fingers crossed, that rogres don’t go in the same direction.
Pretty spot-on to the 7th sculpts, just re-adjusted to modern proportions and scale. Nothing that particularly marks these out as AOS. I can appreciate that, but on the other hand, it feels “safe”. That said, that makes me wonder if they do intend these to do double duty once TOW’s initial release is settled.
Shadow Walker wrote: New rats are good but I wonder if there will be options to not have models with shield in right hand, I hate it.
Yeah, I really want to know what options they have. Like are the two that are double-handing their weapons different from the others? Do they have to have shields? Any options to swap heads or arms around? I assume not with the starter set, but the I am more wondering about the eventual solo release.
Rulewise odds are zero difference whatsoever how you build them.
Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
There will be plenty of sprues around for cheaper than that when the new starter hits the shelves. Gotta be fast
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
There will be plenty of sprues around for cheaper than that when the new starter hits the shelves. Gotta be fast
I'm not so sure. They massively overproduced last time on Dominion. One of two things will happen this time:
1. They will scale back production numbers and dramatically underprivileged, failing to account for the parasitic demand caused by TOW. There will be a mass shortage of AoS4 launch boxes, vicious wailing will ensue.
2. They will not scale back production numbers and will accurately account for TOW demand effects, but the poorly performing (according to AoS haters/TOW fans) Stormcast range will have no demand behind it, leading to a skaven shortage and the price of clanrat sprues inflating to the point it offers minimal savings.
2 is honestly more likely once you factor in the release of the 3 "levels" of starter sets. I expect there will be a lot of excess stormcast sets on the market that skaven fans won't even be able to pay people to take (which will limit the value savings to be had to skaven players).
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
I also expect the second case to be more likely. Little demand for Stormcast seems rather fabricated and will absolutely depend on the design and quality of those new sculpts. One of dominion's biggest issues was the kruleboyz side which had a tepid reception. Even without ToW demand accounted for, Skaven are a much more heavily anticipated release and much more popular faction within the Warhammer IP.
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: They've made it pretty damn explicit at this point that they want no crossover between systems.
Better have the Warhammer Police on standby then as I've already been using stormcast for WFB, so I'm looking forward to the new FOMO 4th Ed AoS set simply to re-enforce my Skaven & Slaanesh Old world forces with new conversion materials.
I also intend to run a campaign weekend where a chaos siege take place against both an old world dwarf fortress, and their Duardin & KO decedents in the mortals realms concurrently.
They can try to separate the systems, but at this late stage they will slowly figure out its not worth the effort.
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
Gw doesn't sell clanrats in boxes of 10 though.
Doesn't sell them in boxes of 10 yet.
They’ve shown 13 models with no double ups.
Big brain move, they're releasing clanrats in boxes that feature the Horned Rats favored number
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
Gw doesn't sell clanrats in boxes of 10 though.
Doesn't sell them in boxes of 10 yet.
They’ve shown 13 models with no double ups.
That's a much more logical reason for asserting they'll sell them in 20's, it's still not a certainty and it's definitely more grounded than stating what they sell the old ones in.
Regards the models I always wanted a skaven army, but these are a little more in the monkey-rat aesthetic of the older sculpts which I'm not a fan of and they're honestly too detailed and well done for a horde army imo.
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
There will be plenty of sprues around for cheaper than that when the new starter hits the shelves. Gotta be fast
assuming people buy the starter for the Stormcast to sell of the Rats and not the other way around, like it was in the past were no one really wanted the Stormcast models and of the other army is of no interest either the starter does not sell at all
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
Gw doesn't sell clanrats in boxes of 10 though.
Doesn't sell them in boxes of 10 yet.
They’ve shown 13 models with no double ups.
That's a much more logical reason for asserting they'll sell them in 20's, it's still not a certainty and it's definitely more grounded than stating what they sell the old ones in.
Regards the models I always wanted a skaven army, but these are a little more in the monkey-rat aesthetic of the older sculpts which I'm not a fan of and they're honestly too detailed and well done for a horde army imo.
Arms do seem a little dangly and the posture is somehow between the previous 2 types it seems (previous ones were quite upright but with very crooked upper spine/neck, these are a bit more forwards leaning overall), and I'm baffled by the amount of left-handed rat-man (and the lore; the idea that they've improvised all their gear during/on the way to battle is pretty ridiculous). But still great little models, and when painted similarly will probably form a pretty nice swarm alongside the previous incarnation. Still glad I panic-bought 2 of the old sets from local stores when their disappearance was announced, but depending on the prices might mix these in for sure. I do enjoy how many little rats are running around near them too, even if painting them will be annoying. Given lack of scale creep, I'm looking forward to the Stormvermin now.
The new warplighting weapon guy looks bland though, I think the old weapon teams had much more character than what has been shown thus far from the new artillery/heavy weapons.
EDIT: But honestly, the biggest improvement? The fact they stopped painting the complete arms/heads of the Skaven in pink skin colour. Never looked right to me.
RaptorusRex wrote: Pretty spot-on to the 7th sculpts, just re-adjusted to modern proportions and scale. Nothing that particularly marks these out as AOS. I can appreciate that, but on the other hand, it feels “safe”. That said, that makes me wonder if they do intend these to do double duty once TOW’s initial release is settled.
they seem to fit the same base sizes, but also, i doubt GW is going to do anything more with skaven than they've already done with the PDF, so the extent of these models in TOW is that you could use them if you want without any issue except maybe an especially curmudgeonly and time period accurate opponent
Biggest downside will be assembly since you will have to find multiple part numbers for every guy with few to no options for customization. Will take ages to put together a proper swarm and you will have many repeated sculpts.
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
I probably would use all the minis in the started box this time, skaven I need for a Mordheim project.
But I lost half my minis for age of sigma, I only just finished them :( and I am unhappy.
Likely 10 bodies, three having options between Clanrat and Command?
Their bodies aren’t repeated in the other 10.
Clanrats are like the quintessential 20 model unit. I really don’t see them being sold in 10s.
Something that's possible is that there's a specific "set" of legs/torsos or whatever that are used for the command stuff. There's been a few instances of late where there's a unique series of bits keyed specifically for that which build a wildly different "basic" trooper.
Kanluwen wrote: Something that's possible is that there's a specific "set" of legs/torsos or whatever that are used for the command stuff. There's been a few instances of late where there's a unique series of bits keyed specifically for that which build a wildly different "basic" trooper.
They've also gotten better at obfuscating such dual builds with photography angles.
EDIT: But honestly, the biggest improvement? The fact they stopped painting the complete arms/heads of the Skaven in pink skin colour. Never looked right to me.
It's one of those "make them true scale and they are tiny and hard to paint/detail" or "make them heroic and they look oversized but are much easier to paint and detail" aspects.
I know there's some 3d prints that I've got which are truer scale and the hands are just freaking utterly tiny things to work with.
Anther thing to consider is they likely look better with GW's scale of weapons if the hands are a little bigger than perfect true scale - since the weapons aren't.
Overread wrote: Anther thing to consider is they likely look better with GW's scale of weapons if the hands are a little bigger than perfect true scale - since the weapons aren't.
Always thought that GWs weapons were unrealistically enormous. I guess it gives you more details and makes them less likely to snap when handling but visually it looks off. I’m going to get blasted for this but in my opinion the worst offender is the Space Marine bolter. Those things are obnoxiously massive.
Overread wrote: Anther thing to consider is they likely look better with GW's scale of weapons if the hands are a little bigger than perfect true scale - since the weapons aren't.
Always thought that GWs weapons were unrealistically enormous. I guess it gives you more details and makes them less likely to snap when handling but visually it looks off. I’m going to get blasted for this but in my opinion the worst offender is the Space Marine bolter. Those things are obnoxiously massive.
Not just easier to see and less risk to damage, but also likely easier to cast more reliably as well. In 3D printing its still an issue learning what can work and what is just too thin to be practical in anything but a high grade resin
Likely 10 bodies, three having options between Clanrat and Command?
Their bodies aren’t repeated in the other 10.
Clanrats are like the quintessential 20 model unit. I really don’t see them being sold in 10s.
Something that's possible is that there's a specific "set" of legs/torsos or whatever that are used for the command stuff. There's been a few instances of late where there's a unique series of bits keyed specifically for that which build a wildly different "basic" trooper.
and those are still the core box snap fit models, and we had it before that the unit size in the core box is not related to the later box or unit size given by the army book
and the Hobgrots come in boxes of 20 with 2 command options and as those are also snap fit the skaven will be similar
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
Gw doesn't sell clanrats in boxes of 10 though.
Doesn't sell them in boxes of 10 yet.
Got evidence gw planning to radically alter their rules?
Clanrats come in blocks of 20 and gw sells minimum sized units as bare minimum with every new release
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
Gw doesn't sell clanrats in boxes of 10 though.
Doesn't sell them in boxes of 10 yet.
Got evidence gw planning to radically alter their rules?
Clanrats come in blocks of 20 and gw sells minimum sized units as bare minimum with every new release
they won't sell a unit that needs 20 in a box of 10, that would be silly
chaos0xomega wrote: Until you look at the prices. Have fun building your skaven army spending $60 for a unit of 10, you'll only need about 10 boxes to cover your core needs for the typical army.
Gw doesn't sell clanrats in boxes of 10 though.
Doesn't sell them in boxes of 10 yet.
Got evidence gw planning to radically alter their rules?
Clanrats come in blocks of 20 and gw sells minimum sized units as bare minimum with every new release
They're indexing and resetting the entire game and you're asking for evidence they're radically changing the rules?
Note, I was being silly with the boxes of 10 comment, they will likely be in 20's still, but it's an unknown and nobody can confidently comment either way.
Could be fun to get extra CP if the opponent is in the lead.
Otherwise it feels a little bit like AoS is picking up stuff that 40k 10th tried to get away from.
At least its not full "build your army to maximise CP", as far as this article explain.
Especially of the absolute asinine syntax of calling buffs "reactions" to your own actions.
I'm guessing it's better than you think. Given how they've said everything is abilities now, I'm betting we'll see reactions in a lot of places, with more triggers than just your own rolls (which AOD already has, too). Classifying them as reactions means they're not locked to a specific phase either, so you could All Out Defense or All Out Attack in the hero phase, for instance, if you (or your opponent) has an ability that lets you fight there. We can already see this sort of interaction being doable with Counter Charge and Forward to Victory.
Especially of the absolute asinine syntax of calling buffs "reactions" to your own actions.
I'm guessing it's better than you think. Given how they've said everything is abilities now, I'm betting we'll see reactions in a lot of places, with more triggers than just your own rolls (which AOD already has, too). Classifying them as reactions means they're not locked to a specific phase either, so you could All Out Defense or All Out Attack in the hero phase, for instance, if you (or your opponent) has an ability that lets you fight there. We can already see this sort of interaction being doable with Counter Charge and Forward to Victory.
Sounds like making excuses for dumb gak to me. I'm not sure why you would think a "buff" is intrinsically locked to some phase but a "reaction" isn't.
"Okay I declare attacks and I react to my own attacks to give myself +1 to hit" sounds psychotic.
It's like they are trying with universal key words; reaction play and alternate activation mechanics just whilst trying to stick to whole army activation games; unique key words, unique abilities and a 3 year product cycle all at once .
For the record I'm perfectly fine with reactions to an opponent's actions, but calling enhances to your own actions reactions is stupidly counterintuitive and it's going to throw newbies off.
In GW syntax "reaction" doesn't actually mean a response, it means "ability that triggers when X happens"
Reaction: When this model moves, it gets +2" to its movement distance.
Reaction: When this model moves, it gets +2" to its movement distance.
Hmm yes that's a reaction alright.
Dunno, maybe it's the former MtG player talking, but I don't see the issue. When X, do Y. Yeah, that reads like a reaction to me.
Perhaps a meta question. Its not the models that move and react to themself, its the player that react to the fact his mini soldiers wont get far enough with their normal move.
Anyway, an effect triggered by a cicumstance sounds like a reaction to me.
Dunno, maybe it's the former MtG player talking, but I don't see the issue. When X, do Y. Yeah, that reads like a reaction to me.
There's no such thing in MTG, what you describe are Triggered Abilities. You do respond to opponents' plays and in fringe cases you do respond to your own plays, but normal people say "I hold priority and do this second thing" not "I'm responding to myself"
might be a language thing, but a reaction is always a response to something someone else is doing
you are never reacting to your own actions
my action can trigger a reaction from the opponent, but cannot trigger a reaction from me as I am the acting player
my action can trigger another action or ability from me
might be that native speakers see this different but I am here with lord blackfang, it just makes no sense
Honestly I think the 3 year cycle is burning the writers hard trying to think up new things to change and get it all done in a very short timeframe. I think its the same as how 40K 10th wound up with psy weapons that don't actually do anything different to normal weapons in game; save from being potentially blocked by a few anti psy abilities (ergo having it is a negative for the player owning the psy model).
Or models that were created that wound up doing nothing (eg the new little neuro floaties for the Tyranids that are very clearly made to be more than a marker in the game and yet that's all they wound up doing).
So this could well be the case of an idea they had that they never coined a simple good term for and just had to go with reactions because it "kind of works" and because they had to send it off to the printers.
you know what is funny, we have the double turn because GW ditched IGoUGo and keeps that in 4th because per popular request to keep IGoUGo away (as for them it was the best solution for removing it)
if you actually mean that GW should change random player turns to random activations, than you should be more clear because GW is listening to what people say and not what people might mean
As more nonsense is released, the happier I am that we're sticking with 3rd as a group. With a few changes through house rules we're happy with what we have. Decent enough rules, battletomes and warscroll cards printed out and all the models we need.
So no 4th edition for our group. We get to keep playing the armies we want. Big plus is the money we save as a group not buying into it. Money we're already looking at spending elsewhere from GW. Happy days.
kodos wrote: might be a language thing, but a reaction is always a response to something someone else is doing
you are never reacting to your own actions
my action can trigger a reaction from the opponent, but cannot trigger a reaction from me as I am the acting player
my action can trigger another action or ability from me
might be that native speakers see this different but I am here with lord blackfang, it just makes no sense
A reaction is just a respone to an action, it doesn't have to come from another party. If I were to drop a cup with my left hand, I could react to catch it with my right.
kodos wrote: might be a language thing, but a reaction is always a response to something someone else is doing
you are never reacting to your own actions
my action can trigger a reaction from the opponent, but cannot trigger a reaction from me as I am the acting player
my action can trigger another action or ability from me
might be that native speakers see this different but I am here with lord blackfang, it just makes no sense
A reaction is just a respone to an action, it doesn't have to come from another party. If I were to drop a cup with my left hand, I could react to catch it with my right.
I think the thing is if you're playing a strategy game then in theory you shouldn't be dropping your cup and then reacting to yourself dropping your cup.
The dropping of the cup itself is an open choice and your follow up to dropping it is a further choice you made.
Ergo you plan each step you make in sequence, you aren't reacting to the previous step because the previous step is part of your two (or more) step plan.
Reacting to your own choices suggests that you're playing very much in the moment and not thinking through your choices.
Now yes MANY people do play like that, but its not really the kind of thinking or approach to a game that a strategy game should encourage.
But that is honestly overthinking things. This is just GW creating a mechanic within the game and rolling it out and giving it a name. Like Wounds or Health Points, Reactions are just a mechanic name and thus on some level their normal use in the real world steps aside for their game use. It's just a term people are disliking the choice of and its getting hyper assessed right now because we've so few bits of the rules to focus on. Time will tell if it was a well chosen name or not; but the real test is if its a fun mechanic that works in the game.
i don't see why clearer rules is a bad thing. this new system has clearly defined points where you can use an ability, and then describes what it's doing. people rag on GW all the time for unclear rules, so here's a step to avoid that
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i don't see why clearer rules is a bad thing. this new system has clearly defined points where you can use an ability, and then describes what it's doing. people rag on GW all the time for unclear rules, so here's a step to avoid that
Yeah, I just think maybe a different term for reactions that focus on yourself might have been a better idea. "Quick Thinking" Perhaps? "Clever Ploy"?
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i don't see why clearer rules is a bad thing. this new system has clearly defined points where you can use an ability, and then describes what it's doing. people rag on GW all the time for unclear rules, so here's a step to avoid that
GW's method of writing clearer rules tends to be criticized for the loss of readability. What GW has done for the last few editions of their main games is usually called legalese, but it's more like a programming language with clear sequencing and strict terminology. It's probably of great benefit to the writers themselves for getting their rules right since it provides a template that is easily followed and checked. It provides mechanical clarity for the robots who play at tournaments. But one may doubt that a lingo with a required catalogue of specific terms reads and teaches as well to a more casual audience as more free-form, idea-based rules written in plain English.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i don't see why clearer rules is a bad thing. this new system has clearly defined points where you can use an ability, and then describes what it's doing. people rag on GW all the time for unclear rules, so here's a step to avoid that
GW's method of writing clearer rules tends to be criticized for the loss of readability. What GW has done for the last few editions of their main games is usually called legalese, but it's more like a programming language with clear sequencing and strict terminology. It's probably of great benefit to the writers themselves for getting their rules right since it provides a template that is easily followed and checked. It provides mechanical clarity for the robots who play at tournaments. But one may doubt that a lingo with a required catalogue of specific terms reads and teaches as well to a more casual audience as more free-form, idea-based rules written in plain English.
Every game has term-centric rules to itself; even games like Football have terms and concepts that are unique to it which require a period of learning.
And most people can grasp those rules.
The problem GW continues to have is that they keep re-writing the rules and changing the terms coupled to a style of writing and information presentation whcih makes simple concepts much harder to take on board. This is then compounded by their desire to segment rules into multiple books so suddenly you've got bits here, bits there all without easy cross referencing elements (eg page number marks) and the like.
Instead of sitting on a 30 year matured rules system with set terms; clear writing and adjustments to feedback; GW are constantly sitting now on a 3 year rules system that's immature and only finding its feet. Constantly we hit the same problem that they just about start to get things working; casual and competitive players are just getting into the real swing of learning and playing the game and then BOOM all change. It's rather like being at the Mad Hatters Teaparty where every few moments you have to swap chairs to a new seat. You hardly get to enjoy your cup of tea before its all change.
Overread wrote: Every game has term-centric rules to itself; even games like Football have terms and concepts that are unique to it which require a period of learning.
And most people can grasp those rules.
Every game doesn't use three different ways of formatting terms to tell you that they are specific terms that must be read a specific way. Have a look at this:
RUN, fully capitalized and bolded
run roll, bolded
Move, capitalized and bolded
None of that is necessary. Most people could grasp that a charge has specific meaning after reading the close combat rules in days of yore. But in pursuit of airtight rules GW deemed it necessary to change a charge to a CHARGE ability, and variations like the charging unit to a unit using that CHARGE ability.
GW's use of terms extends to sentence structure and formatting far beyond what other companies do with game specific terms. It's not about the existence of unique or specific terms, but how they influence the writing.
I think what's really influencing the rules writing is all the ad nauseum debates about 'rules as written' versus 'rules as intended'. It seems to me they're just trying to do a better job of clearly writing the rules as intended.
Overread wrote: Every game has term-centric rules to itself; even games like Football have terms and concepts that are unique to it which require a period of learning.
And most people can grasp those rules.
Every game doesn't use three different ways of formatting terms to tell you that they are specific terms that must be read a specific way. Have a look at this:
RUN, fully capitalized and bolded
run roll, bolded
Move, capitalized and bolded
None of that is necessary. Most people could grasp that a charge has specific meaning after reading the close combat rules in days of yore. But in pursuit of airtight rules GW deemed it necessary to change a charge to a CHARGE ability, and variations like the charging unit to a unit using that CHARGE ability.
GW's use of terms extends to sentence structure and formatting far beyond what other companies do with game specific terms. It's not about the existence of unique or specific terms, but how they influence the writing.
They're used to dealing with people that put 12 exalted eightbound in a rhino at events because it didn't call out the unit precisely by spelling/name on the restrictions. I don't fully blame them.
Overread wrote: Every game has term-centric rules to itself; even games like Football have terms and concepts that are unique to it which require a period of learning.
And most people can grasp those rules.
Every game doesn't use three different ways of formatting terms to tell you that they are specific terms that must be read a specific way. Have a look at this:
RUN, fully capitalized and bolded
run roll, bolded
Move, capitalized and bolded
None of that is necessary. Most people could grasp that a charge has specific meaning after reading the close combat rules in days of yore. But in pursuit of airtight rules GW deemed it necessary to change a charge to a CHARGE ability, and variations like the charging unit to a unit using that CHARGE ability.
GW's use of terms extends to sentence structure and formatting far beyond what other companies do with game specific terms. It's not about the existence of unique or specific terms, but how they influence the writing.
Agreed, this all links into my point that its not the terminology but how GW displays information.
Indeed most of the competitive attempts to abuse the rules often come from the wonky way GW presents them.
Again for a 30-40 year company and game these are really basic things that should have steadily been ironed out over the years as they polished a rules system.
There's no such thing in MTG, what you describe are Triggered Abilities. You do respond to opponents' plays and in fringe cases you do respond to your own plays, but normal people say "I hold priority and do this second thing" not "I'm responding to myself"
I know MtG rules, thanks. What I'm saying is that this level of abstraction isn't a problem to me, just like the stack, priority or state based actions aren't.
detachments in 10th are pretty hit or miss, but i think on the whole the concept is a success. subfaction rules have always been hit or miss, but i don't mind the execution. pretty reasonable to bring it to AOS
So long as they are just indexing subfactions and not models I'm fine with that; though it can be a right pain for any who build a dedicted theme list, esp in larger forces like Skaven where subfactions often come with a lot of unit restrictions and allowances and thus has a big impact on army composition.
Overread wrote: So long as they are just indexing subfactions and not models I'm fine with that; though it can be a right pain for any who build a dedicted theme list, esp in larger forces like Skaven where subfactions often come with a lot of unit restrictions and allowances and thus has a big impact on army composition.
Isnt the restrictions and compositions in the battalions though?
Subfactions is basicly just "give your force a keyword and get a bonus".
Ofcourse they often go hand in hand, but the article specificly called out Battle Formations to be "the subfactions of old" and battalions are not tied to subfactions.
Disclaimer: Its just an honest question, I dont actually play the game, but enjoy reading the battletomes of the armies I collect.
Overread wrote: So long as they are just indexing subfactions and not models I'm fine with that; though it can be a right pain for any who build a dedicted theme list, esp in larger forces like Skaven where subfactions often come with a lot of unit restrictions and allowances and thus has a big impact on army composition.
Isnt the restrictions and compositions in the battalions though?
Subfactions is basicly just "give your force a keyword and get a bonus".
Ofcourse they often go hand in hand, but the article specificly called out Battle Formations to be "the subfactions of old" and battalions are not tied to subfactions.
Disclaimer: Its just an honest question, I dont actually play the game, but enjoy reading the battletomes of the armies I collect.
Effectively, they're doing what they did to 40k: Use whatever Chapter Tactics you want, regardless of how your army is painted.
Overread wrote: So long as they are just indexing subfactions and not models I'm fine with that; though it can be a right pain for any who build a dedicted theme list, esp in larger forces like Skaven where subfactions often come with a lot of unit restrictions and allowances and thus has a big impact on army composition.
Isnt the restrictions and compositions in the battalions though?
Subfactions is basicly just "give your force a keyword and get a bonus".
Ofcourse they often go hand in hand, but the article specificly called out Battle Formations to be "the subfactions of old" and battalions are not tied to subfactions.
Disclaimer: Its just an honest question, I dont actually play the game, but enjoy reading the battletomes of the armies I collect.
Effectively, they're doing what they did to 40k: Use whatever Chapter Tactics you want, regardless of how your army is painted.
Which in turn is gw just codifying what players did anyway
Well if someone want to commit to running it and keeping the thread title up to date then they are welcome to. I haven't got the computer time currently.
Overread wrote: So long as they are just indexing subfactions and not models I'm fine with that; though it can be a right pain for any who build a dedicted theme list, esp in larger forces like Skaven where subfactions often come with a lot of unit restrictions and allowances and thus has a big impact on army composition.
Isnt the restrictions and compositions in the battalions though?
Subfactions is basicly just "give your force a keyword and get a bonus".
Ofcourse they often go hand in hand, but the article specificly called out Battle Formations to be "the subfactions of old" and battalions are not tied to subfactions.
Disclaimer: Its just an honest question, I dont actually play the game, but enjoy reading the battletomes of the armies I collect.
Effectively, they're doing what they did to 40k: Use whatever Chapter Tactics you want, regardless of how your army is painted.
Which in turn is gw just codifying what players did anyway
And in fairness that really only happened because of that one 40K edition where GW came up with the idea of letting you take multiple Force Organisations in one single army; and let you take them from different allied/subfaction groups. Groups that often are "I'm the close combat subgroup; I'm the ranged; I'm the psy" etc... So people just took those models and put them in the subgroup that gave them the best boon. So suddenly 1 army was 3 or 4 subfactions (or in the case of marines entire different chapters)
