I figured this would be helpful to new and experienced players alike in keeping track of how the state of the game generally is and a track on what is likely to come in the near future from what GW has officially said.
GAME EXPANSIONS
Note I've listed this as expansions, however several of them are so widely used that they are considered core to the game in many play areas.
Malign Sorcery. Endless spell components are considered to be core to the game. Use of realm specific rules varies region to region, though generally quite well accepted in most places.
A single boxed set that contains:
rules for Realm Spells, Realm Artefacts and Endless Spells.
14 warscroll cards
13 endless spells (Balewind vortex is the "missing" Endless Spell model as it has its own box)
Forbidden Powers. Another expansion boxed set like Malign Sorcery. Endless spells and new terrain feature are generally considered core to the game. Mercenaries and new terrain feature rules vary region to region, but generally good uptake. Note set appears to contain less than Malign Sorcery, however most of the models in this kit are much larger.
Rules for Greyfyrd Lodge Fyreslayers and Tenebrous Court Flesh-eaters - both mercenary company bands.
Model and rules for Penumbral Engine terrain feature
4 New Endless spells
Warscroll cards for new models and several new terrain sets (as listed on the GW store page)
Older expansions. These are often still valid to play, however as they were generally linked to time-limited events run by GW they are often not so widely used after their general campaign period. Model stats presented in them are likely very out of date though and I believe some battleplans have been reprinted in latter publications. The books can sometimes have lore in them which is often an engaging read for those after a bit more depth and understanding of the world and story of the Age of Sigmar
Malign Portents - mostly a campaign book with battleplans and some narrative battle systems. The rules for models are now present in the respective armies in the Battletomes; whilst the terrain feature is no longer sold by GW. Note currently GW only sells this in e-book format.
Skirmish - a rules set for playing smaller games with far fewer models. Whilst most new battletomes have details for their army for Skirmish within them, the original book is now out of date. GW reprinted updated rules in a White Dwarf issue in 2019 (need to edit in when I find which one) - note this WD might be a bit tricky to get hold of. It's hoped/expected that Skirmish might get its own updated book in time - however Warcry has somewhat jumped into its slot of the smaller format game right now.
Realmgate Wars - some of the first campaign books to be released for the game. The story lore from them is already sold in books by Black Library. Meanwhile the stats and many of the rules are now very out of date. GW only sells these now as ebooks.
Path to Glory - much like the Realmgate Wars this is another very early publication in the AoS timeframe and is now quite out of date.
BATTLETOMES
Note:
Old Battletome = earlier editions which have lore and warscroll cards; but have no allegiance abilities, pre AoS 2.0 rules
New Battletome = more recent release with AoS 2.0 rules, includes more depth and allegiance abilities and other extended content.
No Endless Spells = army with new battletome, but no unique endless spells
Unique Terrain = army has unique terrain feature as part of their collection
Current count (note includes all announced Battletomes)
No Battletome - 0
Old Battletomes - 0
2.0 compatible Battletomes- 24
Grand Alliance Order:
Free Cities - combines Free Peoples, Dispossessed and Aelves - New Battletome, No Terrain, No Spells (however all universal Endless Spells get realm bonus as default)
Daughters of Khaine - New Battletome, No Endless Spells
Fyreslayers - New Battletome announced along with Endless Spells and Terrain feature
Idoneth Deepkin - New Battletome, No Endless Spells, Unique Terrain
Kharadron Overlords - New Battletome
Seraphon - New Battletome, Unique Terrain
Stormcast Eternals - New Battletome, Unique Endless Spells
Sylvaneth - New Battletome, Unique Endless spells, Unique Terrain
Lumineth Realm-Lords - BRAND NEW army reveals in proper began at the LVO 2020 event reveal
Grand Alliance Chaos:
Beasts of Chaos - New Battletome, Unique Endless Spells, Unique Terrain
Blades of Khorne - New Battletome, Unique Endless Spells, Unique Terrain
Disciples of Tzeentch - New Battletome, Unique Endless Spells
Slaves to Darkness - New Battletome, Unique Endless Spells
Hedonites of Slaanesh - New Battletome, Endless Spells and Unique Terrain
Maggotkin of Nurgle - New Battletome. Unique Terrain
Skaven (All Clans) - New Battletome, Unique Endless Spells, Unique Terrain
Legion of Azgorh (Forgeworld Chaos Dwarves) - New Battletome
Tamurkhan's Horde (Forgeworld Nurgle) - New Battletome - WARNING Tamurkhan has been removed from sale from FW - army status at risk
Grand Alliance Death:
Flesh Eater Courts - New Battletome, Unique Endless Spells, Unique Terrain
Legions of Nagash - New Battletome, No Endless Spells
Nighthaunt - New Battletome, Unique Endless Spells
Ossiarch Bonereapers - New Battletome, Unique terrain, Unique Endless Spells
Grand Alliance Destruction:
Ogor Mawtribes - New Battletome, Unique Terrain
Orruk Warclans - New Battletome - no terrain - no endless spells.
Gloomspite Gitz - New Battletome, Unique Endless Spells, Unique Terrain
Removed armies: Note these are armies no longer listed on the GW store for sale, they might have Generals Handbook rules, or they might have been consolidated into other Battletomes/armies.
Brayherd - No Battletome, Allegiance Abilities GHB2018 - However army replaced now with Beasts of Chaos as unified force.
Greenskinz - No Battletome - all models removed from sale
Gitmob (goblins) - No Battletome - all models removed from sale
Aelves - general listing (includes most of the old elf model lines and aelf lines from AoS) Now majority rolled into either Free Cities or removed from sale.
Darkling Covens - GHB2019 rules only - however model line is in Free Cities
Wanderers - akin to aelves above.
Beastclaw Raiders - now part of Ogor Mawtribes
Gutbusters - now part of Ogor Mawtribes
Everchosen - now rolled into Slaves to Darkness
WARNING = products likely and actually on last orders
Forgeworld models - FW has removed quite a lot of AoS models recently and might well continue to remove more in the short term. Keep an eye on them and buy any you want (even popular ones like the magma dragon, warpfiredragon and wolf rats have gone!)
Realm of Chaos: Wrath and Rapture - all models within are now on individual sale - very likely this box will vanish.
Other Age of Sigmar Games:
The following are other games set within the Age of Sigmar:
UNDERWORLD:
A card and board format game which features small warparties of warriors adventuring and competing over small battlefields. The game features core packs which update every so often with a new edition (Beastgrave is the current edition). These contain boards to play on as well as warbands to play with. Many races feature their own unique styled warband which is sold with its own cards and rules. Launch periods often have custom card protectors and dice for newly released factions.
A minor negative point is that many universal cards (can be used by any force) are often sold through different warbands so there's a bit of a "collect them all" aspect to the game.
The models released in this have full rules for the full AoS game and can be used in it. Those which had battletomes published after the release of a warband will have the rules within the battletome; otherwise the rules will be included in the box and on the GW website under the rules tab for each warband on their store page.
NOTE The GW store often shows two listings for many of these warbands. One on the "Underworlds" tab which has a slightly higher price and will have all the Underworld cards included. The other is on the army page for the warband under Age of Sigmar and will feature a slightly lower price but also no cards. Note some warbands do fall out of production when it comes to card supply; however the models remain on sale under their respective army page. Sometimes you can find "out of production" warbands with cards in retailers (3rd party and GW stores).
WARCRY
A skirmish game format which features its own unique set of rules and boxed game. The game works by using small warbands of warriors, either unique chaos themed ones or regular models from all current GW armies for the game.
The game is sold through terrain packs which contain terrain features in plastic as well as card boards to play the game on. The terrain positions and design vary depending on randomly drawn cards which detail the setup of the game; the position for starting for both players; twists (unique variations to the rules/stats which can include wandering monsters such as chaos furies).
Players roll dice and make choices on how to play through the battle. Games are short and brutal aiming for a quick to setup and quick to play game ideal for new people with limited budgets and for any gamer with limited time or after a different scale of combat.
All models can be used in the regular AoS game (most Warcry unique models are all from the Slaves to Darkness AoS army
I personally don't consider all of the 2.0 battletomes to be in the same field as each other.
For example: nurgle. That book is not a trash fire, but it pretty much will never stand up to Skaven or FEC if the skaven or FEC player is fielding hyper optimization powergamer build.
Thats just to head off how the whole game will therefore be balanced and everything will be great discussion that tends to follow.
However, on the plus side if they can bring by the end of 2019 75% or more of the factions into 2.0 rulebooks, it will in fact bring a lot of player satisfaction back if they keep the books at the same power level as goblins and khorne (both books I find fun and well written without glaring WTF power builds staring at you once you crack the cover))
I do consider nurgle book vs khorne book to be an entertaining game with a slight nod to khorne in power but player skill can compensate and the insidious double turn can artificially make the game win / loss at least more balanced regardless if you find it fun that the game is won or lost by a double turn (another discussion that has been had a billion times that doesn't need repeated here)
I also think that if they get the game to a near complete state it also helps to clarify a lot of uncertain things for gamers. Factions with a 2.0 book are likely to stick around long term which is going to encourage people into the game. Plus it also removes the whole "where are my rules" question for some who have rules in bits and drabs dotted in the generals hand book or only have warscroll cards on the GW website.
I can agree that there are some balance questions here and there, but also once everyone is on 2.0 books and functioning the same it also opens up to GHB being able to make adjustments to the mechanics rather than making new rules and systems.
I think books that are 2.0 compliant such as Nurgle and DoK are more likely to see "Revised editions" like the new CSM codex rather than a big release. A revised edition to update points and maybe add Endless Spells into it.
There are 3 x 2.0 compliant tomes in all(ie. compliant but released before official 2.0 launched)? Maggotkin, DoK, and Idoneth.
Thing is GW doesn't have to release an updated Battletome for those factions. They can just release the Endless Spell and Terrain boxed sets and put the cards in a pack/in the box and its job done. They don't need to reprint all the books just to add 4 warscrolls to them. Heck even more the case now since GW publishes all the Warscrolls for AoS free online on their webstore.
Crispy78 wrote: I'm a little bemused that they're looking at second releases for the Fyreslayers when stuff like Free People haven't had anything yet...
True, but at the same time don't forget many of the first generation Battletomes were little more than lore and warscroll cards. They had new alliance abilities and other such things which have become core components of the AoS system. I also think that those tomes make an ideal target for updating as GW can just release book and endless spells and terrain - all overseas production that doesn't put additional strain on the GW factories (esp since I don't think their new factory is even finished nor online yet).
Also remember it's due to the models that are made. You won't see a free peoples tome if there's a chance of an updated model range until the updated model range. Of course otherwise they could do something like just put out a quick tome with existing models (like with Skaven).
I think 2.0 is already suffering from GW once again adding new design paradigms midway through.
Good work, Overread. It'd be nice if a mod could sticky this. Be a nice thing to be able to refer new posters to. As a couple have mentioned, I would put DoK and Nurgle in their own category since they're both "1.75e" tomes. They were created with the new design philosophy in mind, but still used some post-GHB elements as well. DoK seems to be competing just fine, but Nurgle kind of suffers from First Codex Syndrome. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see one or both of them see a small revision (more than just points adjustments, but not enough to justify a whole new book) before it's all said and done.
Crispy78 wrote: I'm a little bemused that they're looking at second releases for the Fyreslayers when stuff like Free People haven't had anything yet...
True, but at the same time don't forget many of the first generation Battletomes were little more than lore and warscroll cards. They had new alliance abilities and other such things which have become core components of the AoS system. I also think that those tomes make an ideal target for updating as GW can just release book and endless spells and terrain - all overseas production that doesn't put additional strain on the GW factories (esp since I don't think their new factory is even finished nor online yet).
It is also good to keep in mind that many of the tomes that are being updated are most likely going to be low-hanging fruits: easy money for GW while they update an existing faction as they will not get many models or much new. I mean, it seems that the Fyreslayers release - with the exception of endless spells and that forge - is pretty much barebones as far as we can tell.
Crispy78 wrote: I'm a little bemused that they're looking at second releases for the Fyreslayers when stuff like Free People haven't had anything yet...
True, but at the same time don't forget many of the first generation Battletomes were little more than lore and warscroll cards. They had new alliance abilities and other such things which have become core components of the AoS system. I also think that those tomes make an ideal target for updating as GW can just release book and endless spells and terrain - all overseas production that doesn't put additional strain on the GW factories (esp since I don't think their new factory is even finished nor online yet).
It is also good to keep in mind that many of the tomes that are being updated are most likely going to be low-hanging fruits: easy money for GW while they update an existing faction as they will not get many models or much new. I mean, it seems that the Fyreslayers release - with the exception of endless spells and that forge - is pretty much barebones as far as we can tell.
Aye, whilst I'm sure GW would like to add models and update many as well they have a limited production capacity at their Nottingham factory and their new factory isn't yet online. As a result they can't just pump out new models for every force. At the same time there are still players of those armies who are playing and who are current customers. So GW can do some spells and terrain and an updated book which all use design staff in-house and then overseas production which GW can increase by hiring more factory space overseas. So its very easy for them to scale up and keep that going without it impacting their main factories. And lets not forget their main factories are still pushing out new models at a very fast rate.
It's surprising that a small army like Fyreslayers didn't get a release in the schedule, but I think GW is simply reacting to the fact that people who dont' get into AoS are often citing the confusing rules situation with some armies on old battletomes and some without them etc... So I think they are fixing that first and models will come later.
I'm really ok with no models being released right now so long as the external and internal balance is being upgraded so that all of the factions are viable and that internally multiple builds are viable.
It's surprising that a small army like Fyreslayers didn't get a release in the schedule, but I think GW is simply reacting to the fact that people who dont' get into AoS are often citing the confusing rules situation with some armies on old battletomes and some without them etc... So I think they are fixing that first and models will come later.
It is due to this that I wouldn't be too surprised if they try to consolidate all leftover models into tomes or cancel certain models by the end of the year or sometimes early next year. It must be weird for new players to go to the GW website, see a ton of models(there are A LOT) that don't have official tomes or don't really belong to a proper cohesive force.
To be fair the "tonne of models" is mostly now consigned to Aelves. Most of the rest are at least visually a coherent army/force with a unified appearance and style - more or less.
Of course the other big change was at Christmas where they stripped out a LOT of fringe factions, heck there were several factions with only one or two models to their name (death had one faction which was just one of the ghost ark variations and nothing else). No models (far as I know) were lost but it made the store FAR more accessible to new and even experienced people as to what was what.
2019 is the year of cleaning the heck out of AoS to get it back to a sensible structure.
My point was more that we currently have these model ranges without an official tome or properly updated rules and each contain a plethora of available models.
- Aelves 44
- Dispossessed 10
- Free people 34
- Creatures of Chaos 17
- Everchosen and Slaves to Darkness - 27
- Gutbusters 20
and for some reason Australia still has Greenskinz with only the Orruk Warboss available as Direct Order...
But overall these are a lot of models(152) that haven't had any love or attention for a long time except for token gestures in the last General's Handbook. The only complete Grand Alliance is Death and interestingly enough that's the only Grand Alliance Book no longer available. Basically a quarter of all the available models are those without any support and I can't imagine that's helpful for new players/customers visiting the website.
I really really want to expand my Gutbusters (Normal ogres army) but after the greenskin genocide I'm very afraid they'll go the same route.
The plastic kits are old, specially the normal ogres, etc... but they are still very good looking even for today standards. Of course that was also true for Boar Boyz and look how that ended.
Until they receive a battletome I can't bring me to buy anything.
I don't have a crystal ball, but there a few factions I wouldn't start right now (the ones I believe have the most uncertain future):
Any aelves who are not deepkin/daughters.
Freeguild
Greenskins/gitmob.
I think the rest are pretty safe (including ogors).
If it feels like your army is taking a long while without any rules coming out for them: I'm expecting a heavy Gloomspite Gitz style revamp for:
Ogors (with more suneater stuff).
Freeguild (more rough mercenary style warriors, less 17th century infantryman, like in the lore books).
Shadow and light aelves (pretty much stated, so not much of a prediction).
NinthMusketeer wrote: I still maintain that greenskinz and gitmib are coming back, with new miniatures.
Oh, I'm not denying that... Gitmob in particular gets a specific mention as those gobbos worshopping the evil sun in stead of the bad moon. So a link with firebellies is even possible. Same with Greenskins and ironjawz being a potential combo if you ask me...
I'm just talking about a "you are almost surely buying outdated models with those factions" point of view, not a rules/gaming point of view.
I was hoping the duardin update would combine fyreslayers, overlords, and dispossessed into one book. Individually, each faction is very thin in model selection and play style. In contrast, the other AoS models I collect, Khorne, has a wider range seemingly then even if the 3 books were combined.
I am glad that they did not combine them, since they are still very different armies with different synergies, play styles, and feel on the tabletop. I feel there's no need for each army to have the same number of options.
What I would like to see is a GHB allegiance for mixed Duardin, Aelves, Grots, etc. Something like the free cities rules where it is based off the generic grand alliance but with a little extra for sort-of specializing.
Note for any Slaanesh and Khorne players - the pre-release prices for Slaanesh show that the two new models in Wrath and Rapture duel box are going up for individual sale as well. This means its all coming in one big pre-release wave this coming weekend. As a result its very likely that Wrath and Rapture is totally out of production and will now only sell on remaining stock. With both armies now equipped with tomes its likely that stock will run out reasonably to very fast. So if you want them get a hold of them now. It's a great saving and even if you don't want the "other side" it should prove easy to sell half of it off.
Also remember any metal/finecast models for Slaanesh are likely to go out of production without warning. Keeper of Secrets in metal is already gone in several territories (as expected). The Masque is also a pretty much guaranteed to be gone model. The Hero on mount and herald have a big questionmark over them. The herald has appeared in photos of armies in community posts on the GW site and there's no direct replacement for it in the line up so it could be hanging around; whilst the lord on mount has appeared in some big artwork, but that's no guarantee it will remain.
The lord on foot nothing has been heard of so could also vanish.
Basically if its metal or finecast and you really want it best to grab a copy now if you can; in my experience finecast stuff doesn't turn up as much on ebay whilst metal tends to quickly climb in value once its no longer produced.
I expect Free Peoples, Aelves and Dispossessed to go the same way as the Greenskins. They have Stormcast as the moar awesomer version of humans, daughters of khaine and deepkin as moar awesomer elves, and fyreslayers and overlords as moar awesomer dwarves. Ironjawz are their version of moar awesomer Orcs, and so normal Orcs had no place in the game and were removed. I figure they will just stagger it to reduce fan backlash.
Free People's certainly won't. They're far too ingrained story wise and appear in artwork too often to simply disappear. Same with Dispossessed who feature quite a bit in the new Fyrelsayers book. Aelves we'll have to wait and see as we're still waiting for the light and shadow aelves release which has been teased since the beginning. We'll have to see how the current ranges are ingratiated into those and then see what's left over.
Greenskinz never got books or stories written about them. (unless I missed any, which is possible). But we have had books about mortal witch hunters, adventurers etc. Cathay is irrelevant to the discussion.
I think with Free People's specifically, they just need to get a unified theme with them. With Aelves in particular, I could quite easily see the Eldritch Council, Dragons etc wrapped into the light aelves and things like the Darkling Covens and assassins folded into Malerions shadow aelves.
Free Peoples are 100% Staying, some models might be lost, move around or get remade, but the concept of a pure human faction is going to stick with AoS. Remember Stormcast are just the elite warriors and, far as we know, they either cannot or don't reproduce. In addition they don't "live" a normal life. They are pretty much forged for war and that's about it. Heck in the Realmgate Wars they march for days on end with little food or water and still manage to fight through several armies of Chaos at the end.
Free Peoples are all the mortal humans of the Realms. Indeed in time I would expect GW to add at least one more human faction or fragment Free Peoples with model supported subfactions to represent different human subcultures.
At present there's the oddity that Aelves in the setting are no more numerous than humans (early lore suggests they were significantly under populated, but by the AoS period its fairly even populations); but the Aelves have a glut of factions whilst humans have not even had one with a proper Battletome yet.
Aelves we've no idea what GW is going to do They might roll them into existing forces (it strikes me odd that Idoneth didn't take Scourge Privateers and that more of the other Dark Aelves didn't join Morathi's force); into the new armies in some form or even just into a united Aelven Alliance. It might als obe that early on if they do form a united alliance it won't "look right" until GW gets a chance to revise the sculpts on many.
I am pretty skeptical. The game has been out for ages now, we have had loads of battletomes done, some factions are on their second battletome. GW have had ample chance to do something with normal humans, but they have done nothing with them. That to me suggests a lack of interest.
In my 20 years or so paying attention to GW, a lack of interest from the Design Studio is the kiss of death for an army. That is what happened to Brets - no interest in them in the design studio, so no one bothered to update them after 6th edition Fantasy despite them being pretty popular. They have done the same with various factions tonnes of time, because the design studio is very ill disciplined and sloppy. Never seen a game company so unprofessional when it comes to supporting stuff.
So Free Peoples not getting an update in the first edition of the game to me reeks of "we do not care about this, none of us are excited about it". Having normal humans in books and so on is just a function of the need for a relatable narrative, but does not mean they will definitely keep the Free Peoples as they are. They might, but it is just as likely that they scrap the Free Peoples as they are (a bunch of Holy Roman Empire knock offs) and do something different when someone in the Studio has a lightbulb moment.
Again, I would be happy to be proven wrong. I hate it when factions are squatted (another example of a faction where no one in the Studio had any enthusiasm for them, so they just had them unceremoniously eaten by the Tyranids between editions).
The Aelves have "a glut of factions" because they divided 3 middling sized armies into even smaller portions. At least one of them(Swifthawk Agents) can't actually purchase a few of their Battleline or Hero options at the moment.
Free People had it good by comparison.
That all said, it really isn't a surprise that stuff didn't get rolled together like you're suggesting. Idoneth live under the sea--Privateers don't. They both raid but one is raiding for profit and one is raiding for survival.
Shadowblades honestly need to be expanded or turned into an "Assassins" styled Allies faction. Because that's what they're fluffed as.
Da Boss wrote: I am pretty skeptical. The game has been out for ages now, we have had loads of battletomes done, some factions are on their second battletome. GW have had ample chance to do something with normal humans, but they have done nothing with them. That to me suggests a lack of interest.
In my 20 years or so paying attention to GW, a lack of interest from the Design Studio is the kiss of death for an army. That is what happened to Brets - no interest in them in the design studio, so no one bothered to update them after 6th edition Fantasy despite them being pretty popular. They have done the same with various factions tonnes of time, because the design studio is very ill disciplined and sloppy. Never seen a game company so unprofessional when it comes to supporting stuff.
So Free Peoples not getting an update in the first edition of the game to me reeks of "we do not care about this, none of us are excited about it". Having normal humans in books and so on is just a function of the need for a relatable narrative, but does not mean they will definitely keep the Free Peoples as they are. They might, but it is just as likely that they scrap the Free Peoples as they are (a bunch of Holy Roman Empire knock offs) and do something different when someone in the Studio has a lightbulb moment.
Again, I would be happy to be proven wrong. I hate it when factions are squatted (another example of a faction where no one in the Studio had any enthusiasm for them, so they just had them unceremoniously eaten by the Tyranids between editions).
And again, my point is that they have had novel focus. Recent novel focus too. You don't put the time and money into writing books about a faction you're intending to kill off.
AoS has had a messy life. Straight out the door no one got books nor points; then they rallied behind the Generals Handbook 1 and started releasing tomes, but they were pretty quick affairs with just warscrolls and nothing more. Some 1.0 versions then got out and then AoS 2.0 launched and that's really taken off with proper Battletomes.
Some armies, like Khorne have wound up with 3 battletomes, whilst others - eg Free Peoples haven't even had one yet. Lets not forget most of Skaven never had a tome; Slaanesh never had a Tome; Beastmen etc... so a lack of Tome I don't think is the same death nail that it once was because AoS has just been darn messy until 2.0 landed.
Even if the design team isn't wowed with free peoples, GW has put way too many resources into lore, fluff, artwork and background; not to mention that otherwise AoS simply won't have a single human faction within it if they don't do Free Peoples. Of all the "no battletome" forces they are one of the safest.
Well, I hope you are right. I never would have expected them to get rid of basic Orcs and Goblins, to my mind one of the most iconic Warhamer races and a key part of the majority of starter sets. Empire and Orcs and Goblins used to be the first ones out the gate or near enough with army books in the old days, so the fact that they can squat O&G so unceremoniously says to me that they do not really care for the old stuff.
Basic humans may continue, but will they still use the Empire kits? If they don't, and if they undergo a drastic change in background an aesthetic I would argue they are then an entirely new faction and the old faction has been squatted. It would make sense, there really is no point in keeping the Empire in the new game, it clashes with the background as it is.
I think that you need to accept that The Empire is dead. I'm honestly a bit disappointed that they kept them with the Empire aesthetic as long as they have, but at the very least one can make an argument that the Freeguild looking the way they are is because it's a kind of mercenary outfit traveling the Realms rather than stuck in one specific place.
Empire and Brets as armies are dead, though Empire sort of appears in some stories about the end of the Mythic Age. However their models and core concepts are not dead. Empire persists through Free Peoples, though it might well go through some major changes.
Brets might or might not reappear as a concept -the idea of a knightly order riding mythical mounts and ruling kingdoms in the Realms is very possible to happen. It really depends if GW want to make it happen; it would be godo to give at least one more human faction to the game and a knightly order would be a neat way to craft it - an injection of classic fantasy with a high magic twist .
I agree that they should not keep the Empire miniatures for Age of Sigmar. The most disappointing thing about AoS background is how they kept the background linked to the Old World with characters like Morthai and so on. It would be a lot cooler if it was totally different. Having these very German looking distintively Empire humans as your basic dudes is another aspect of this.
So I expect the Empire stuff to disappear, and be replaced by another human faction that suits the new setting better. They might be really cool and I might well buy some. Deepkin for example are pretty sweet minis and have cool background. But keeping the Empire stuff "in the game" tricks new people into thinking they have a future when the Studio actually likely has no plans to do anything with them. It is a bit like starting Brets in 8th edition thinking it might get a new book soon and then...
Da Boss wrote: I expect Free Peoples, Aelves and Dispossessed to go the same way as the Greenskins. They have Stormcast as the moar awesomer version of humans, daughters of khaine and deepkin as moar awesomer elves, and fyreslayers and overlords as moar awesomer dwarves. Ironjawz are their version of moar awesomer Orcs, and so normal Orcs had no place in the game and were removed. I figure they will just stagger it to reduce fan backlash.
Very happy to be proved wrong.
I find this to be a strange assessment. DoK and Deepkin are just different flavors of aelf, they have never been presented as being 'bigger and better' than other aelf armies. Ditto for fyreslayers and kharadron. Greenskinz lost some very old kits, as did gitmob, both are clearly not going away (especially the latter). They are even in the GW survey.
Da Boss wrote: I agree that they should not keep the Empire miniatures for Age of Sigmar. The most disappointing thing about AoS background is how they kept the background linked to the Old World with characters like Morthai and so on. It would be a lot cooler if it was totally different. Having these very German looking distintively Empire humans as your basic dudes is another aspect of this.
So I expect the Empire stuff to disappear, and be replaced by another human faction that suits the new setting better. They might be really cool and I might well buy some. Deepkin for example are pretty sweet minis and have cool background. But keeping the Empire stuff "in the game" tricks new people into thinking they have a future when the Studio actually likely has no plans to do anything with them. It is a bit like starting Brets in 8th edition thinking it might get a new book soon and then...
I'd argue it's nothing like that. Brettonia and Tomb Kings got squatted half a year after the release of Age of Sigmar. Yet Tomb Kings got an army book in 8th ed along with a halfhearted model update (in 2013, two years before AoS got released). My take is that Tomb Kings were redone prior to or early enough in the planning of Age of Sigmar that they had yet to decide to squat them. Bretonnia would have followed later in the update queue (and really, they redid Wood Elves - if they hadn't pulled the plug, I expect 8th ed would have seen a complete army book update, even Brettonia). Starting Brettonia in Fantasy and then getting squatted in Age of Sigmar is very likely bad timing combined with GW's reluctance to communicate.
Humans with Empire aesthetic may or may not stick around, but GW has gone to some lengths to integrate the former setting into the current one. You especially see this with Nagash. The number of times Nehekhara is mentioned is staggering, especially considering the army associated with Nehekhara was squatted. As such, with all the memories of the old world and Sigmar being given the role of bringer of civilization, I doubt that GW plans to actively invalidate the currently available models. They can easily be fluffed (and probably are) as what Sigmar taught them or how people imagine Sigmar wants them to look, puffy sleeves and all.
I share your view that it would have been good to have cultures based on the Mortal Realms instead of a setting that is marginalized and without much value anymore. I dimly remember the rulebook having some drawings along those lines, showing what a human from each Realm might look like. I'm undecided whether we'll see this in time, when Order humans get their own line of AoS models, or if the Empire style is largely retained. The former has practical limits because GW would have to make so many kits for to represent the different Realms, so while I'm generally of the opinion that GW wants to make new models that are their own thing, I think in the case of humans a baseline of loyal subjects of Sigmar might be the practical choice for GW. Especially considering how many (or rather few) 40k Imperial Guard regiments we have in plastic. GW seems fine with the idea on a Skirmish level, though, as (possibly, let's see what Warhammer Fest brings) evidenced by Warcry.
Also, I think you look at this too much from a veteran player perspective. Someone who didn't care about or doesn't even know the old Empire may well pick up the current models, and happily also buy new ones made in different style because they don't have the association with the culture of the Empire. Instead, they may just see different expressions of humans in the Mortal Realms, which are many and varied and can coexist happily in their continent and Realm spanning cities.
I think the bigger issue will be that new human models will be beefier and a head taller than the current ones. Not the end of the world, but much more of a consideration that the style of their clothing.
Da Boss wrote: I expect Free Peoples, Aelves and Dispossessed to go the same way as the Greenskins. They have Stormcast as the moar awesomer version of humans, daughters of khaine and deepkin as moar awesomer elves, and fyreslayers and overlords as moar awesomer dwarves. Ironjawz are their version of moar awesomer Orcs, and so normal Orcs had no place in the game and were removed. I figure they will just stagger it to reduce fan backlash.
Very happy to be proved wrong.
I find this to be a strange assessment. DoK and Deepkin are just different flavors of aelf, they have never been presented as being 'bigger and better' than other aelf armies. Ditto for fyreslayers and kharadron. Greenskinz lost some very old kits, as did gitmob, both are clearly not going away (especially the latter). They are even in the GW survey.
On Deepkin specifically, they're super buff and ride sharks. That's the definition of bigger and better. You can't top that.
I will be happy if you guys are right. I was surprised by how sad I was about common orcs and goblins going. They were my main WFB army for a really long time. I do not like Ironjawz at all.
Da Boss wrote: I expect Free Peoples, Aelves and Dispossessed to go the same way as the Greenskins. They have Stormcast as the moar awesomer version of humans, daughters of khaine and deepkin as moar awesomer elves, and fyreslayers and overlords as moar awesomer dwarves. Ironjawz are their version of moar awesomer Orcs, and so normal Orcs had no place in the game and were removed. I figure they will just stagger it to reduce fan backlash.
Very happy to be proved wrong.
I find this to be a strange assessment. DoK and Deepkin are just different flavors of aelf, they have never been presented as being 'bigger and better' than other aelf armies. Ditto for fyreslayers and kharadron. Greenskinz lost some very old kits, as did gitmob, both are clearly not going away (especially the latter). They are even in the GW survey.
On Deepkin specifically, they're super buff and ride sharks. That's the definition of bigger and better. You can't top that.
I... I cannot contradict that argument. It's too valid.
Honestly I can see GW merging the two ork factions and the two ogor factions into single Battletomes.
Almost certainly for gutbusters and beastclaws since the BCR share the same visual design and basically only have one kit; GW can merge them and then just have a subfaction or even battlegroup that focuses on using more cavalry.
Overread wrote: Honestly I can see GW merging the two ork factions and the two ogor factions into single Battletomes.
Yeah, I think that's the future.
I really never would have guessed they'd put the Spiderfang with Moonclan and essentially rebrand that combined sub-faction as Gloomspite Gitz and add some fluff that makes it make sense. Well, as much sense as shroom/poison addicted goblins working together can make.
There is also the possibility that they commissioned the artwork before the decision to squat Greenskins was made, and then decided they're just orruks, so might as well keep the art they paid for already. I'm not saying this is how it went, but it seems more likely than completely removing a "faction" of five or six very outdated kits from sales only to reintroduce them later when Ironjawz and Bonesplitters fill out their niche already.
Given the ancient nature of most of those kits I simply doubt they had any meaningful sales at this point. When they sold out they figured it wasn't worth another production run with the new ones coming out soonish.
Da Boss wrote: I agree that they should not keep the Empire miniatures for Age of Sigmar. The most disappointing thing about AoS background is how they kept the background linked to the Old World with characters like Morthai and so on. It would be a lot cooler if it was totally different. Having these very German looking distintively Empire humans as your basic dudes is another aspect of this.
So I expect the Empire stuff to disappear, and be replaced by another human faction that suits the new setting better. They might be really cool and I might well buy some. Deepkin for example are pretty sweet minis and have cool background. But keeping the Empire stuff "in the game" tricks new people into thinking they have a future when the Studio actually likely has no plans to do anything with them. It is a bit like starting Brets in 8th edition thinking it might get a new book soon and then...
I'd argue it's nothing like that. Brettonia and Tomb Kings got squatted half a year after the release of Age of Sigmar. Yet Tomb Kings got an army book in 8th ed along with a halfhearted model update (in 2013, two years before AoS got released). My take is that Tomb Kings were redone prior to or early enough in the planning of Age of Sigmar that they had yet to decide to squat them. Bretonnia would have followed later in the update queue (and really, they redid Wood Elves - if they hadn't pulled the plug, I expect 8th ed would have seen a complete army book update, even Brettonia). Starting Brettonia in Fantasy and then getting squatted in Age of Sigmar is very likely bad timing combined with GW's reluctance to communicate.
Humans with Empire aesthetic may or may not stick around, but GW has gone to some lengths to integrate the former setting into the current one. You especially see this with Nagash. The number of times Nehekhara is mentioned is staggering, especially considering the army associated with Nehekhara was squatted. As such, with all the memories of the old world and Sigmar being given the role of bringer of civilization, I doubt that GW plans to actively invalidate the currently available models. They can easily be fluffed (and probably are) as what Sigmar taught them or how people imagine Sigmar wants them to look, puffy sleeves and all.
I share your view that it would have been good to have cultures based on the Mortal Realms instead of a setting that is marginalized and without much value anymore. I dimly remember the rulebook having some drawings along those lines, showing what a human from each Realm might look like. I'm undecided whether we'll see this in time, when Order humans get their own line of AoS models, or if the Empire style is largely retained. The former has practical limits because GW would have to make so many kits for to represent the different Realms, so while I'm generally of the opinion that GW wants to make new models that are their own thing, I think in the case of humans a baseline of loyal subjects of Sigmar might be the practical choice for GW. Especially considering how many (or rather few) 40k Imperial Guard regiments we have in plastic. GW seems fine with the idea on a Skirmish level, though, as (possibly, let's see what Warhammer Fest brings) evidenced by Warcry.
Also, I think you look at this too much from a veteran player perspective. Someone who didn't care about or doesn't even know the old Empire may well pick up the current models, and happily also buy new ones made in different style because they don't have the association with the culture of the Empire. Instead, they may just see different expressions of humans in the Mortal Realms, which are many and varied and can coexist happily in their continent and Realm spanning cities.
I think the bigger issue will be that new human models will be beefier and a head taller than the current ones. Not the end of the world, but much more of a consideration that the style of their clothing.
The problem is that people associate Free Peoples with the Empire models because that was the only thing that they had. There were no other models under that faction other than Empires. I think that people, and to the larger extent GW will always link the Empire models with the Free Peoples or whatever they call that group.
Thread updated with the two new tomes from the Warhammer event today - note I'm not sure what specific aelves are included and are not included in the new free cities so I've left the aelves tab up incase it doesn't include them all.
When ive suggested it ive gotten a fair amount of backlash for that idea. I was exactly today years old when i heard cities book with a mlx of races being a serious idea for a battletome.
Or maybe it was just people still hate the idea of mixing races and want battletomes to remain “pure”.
Pages 142-143 of the AoS 2.0 Core Rulebook specifically includes lore for most of the old High Elf model ranges. Specific model types are called out by name, such as Swordmasters and the White Lions. I don't see the same for old school orcs and gobbos. I don't put it by GW to simply ignore old lore, but to recently put out a Core Rulebook with fluff points concerning elf/aelves that could be dropped or summarised without specifics and then potentially drop things like White Lions, which I've seen some be wary of, doesn't make sense. Just throwing that out there. I certainly don't know what's on GW's mind.
Also, some have said that kits like White Lions are already off the webstore. They are off the UK store, which might mean rebranding/rebasing. They are not off the US store. Just purchased a kit.
My suspicions are that the Isle of Blood/Spire of Dawn warscrolls without proper kits might be moved to legends and that's what that reference is about. Again, I'm no seer.
If they remove the Isle of Blood HE stuff, it kills the Swifthawk Agents as a faction.
Currently the faction is: -Skywarden(Skycutter mounted Hero--which is annoying because the guy can be built on foot as well) -Skycutter -High Warden on Griffon -Shadow Warriors -Spireguard -Reavers -Chariot
Out of those 7 units, only 3(Skywarden/Skycutter are the same kit) are currently able to even be purchased!
Kanluwen wrote: If they remove the Isle of Blood HE stuff, it kills the Swifthawk Agents as a faction.
Currently the faction is:
-Skywarden(Skycutter mounted Hero--which is annoying because the guy can be built on foot as well)
-Skycutter
-High Warden on Griffon
-Shadow Warriors
-Spireguard
-Reavers
-Chariot
Out of those 7 units, only 3(Skywarden/Skycutter are the same kit) are currently able to even be purchased!
Come to think of it, the Skycutter is also solid in the AoS lore. The Idoneth Deepkin were introduced via stories of Skycutters and Swifthawk Agent networks reporting on the undersea aelves. I don't think GW is concerned about making the elf sub-groups standalone-able. The whole point of the Cities of Sigmar is to emphasize that these are cities with mixed demographics. I do hope that there are elf battleine units so I can make a pure elf army. I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining Swifthawk units occupy only the "Other" battlefield role. It's all speculation right now, though, so we wait for the announcements and the book.
So updated the first post with today's news and as a result the counts are VERY interesting now
No Battletome - 2
Old Battletome - 5
2.0 compatible Battletome - 18
This includes the two new announced battletomes (Orruks and Free Cities), but excludes the hinted at (rumour/word of mouth) Ogors Battletome.
In addition I'm not including any Aelves in that count as we are not fully certain which Aelves are in the Free Cities nor if any are going to get a duel role (feature in two armies) nor which are to be removed. So I've just left them out of the count.
Suffice it to say that right now there's only 7 battletomes required to get all of AoS onto 2.0 and of those there's a high chance of two combined tomes which takes the count down to just 5!
(Slaves to Darkness + Everchosen - Gutbusters + Beastclaw Raiders)
5 Tomes ontop of the 2 we know of means 7 Tomes - That's a number GW could release between now and Christmas and even if they don't it means only cutting one or two months into 2020 to get all of AoS upgrade to 2.0 compatible Battletomes. This is a fantastic thing for AoS though the Free Cities battletome is going to be a very interesting thing to see how it all functions. It could be the fantastic clean up that does work with the lore; and also makes Order a more manageable chunk of models; but if too many are lost and if GW mess it up it could also be a very messy Tome. A lot rides on this one; there's a lto of classic human, elf and dwarven armies and thus collectors and customers wrapped up in that one release.
After the news broke that some Order kits will be getting the axe, I looked through their roster and took an educated guess on what they’ll lose*. None of this is particularly groundbreaking or Nostrodamus-esque, just some educated guessing and some blatant wishlisting in regards to shuffling units into different factions to get rid of the faction bloat and such.
In no particular order:
Dispossessed
-Warriors/Thunderers/Quarrelers will get the axe. Too generic and they share none of the design that was put into the newer elite Dwarf kits or characters. They look extremely dated when next to the Hammerer/Ironbreaker kits.
Wanderers
-Glade Guard. Same as the above dwarf kits. Their mounted versions were axed at the birth of AoS as well if I remember correctly.
-Probably eliminate redundancy in the Finecast characters.
-Shadow Warriors would take the Glade Guard spot. Their kitbuild variant, Sisters of the Watch, are already in the Wanderers roster as well.
Lion Rangers
-White Lions infantry recently discontinued, so there’s that.
-Stands to reason that the Chariot will follow soon, as well as its variant build having no aesthetic link to any other faction (High Elf kits that it was related to are all gone, save maybe a few characters)
Swifthawk Agents
-Barring a re-re-release of Isle of Blood, their infantry(Spireguard) as well as their cavalry (Reavers) are already gone, so I think this “faction” will be cut altogether.
-Their chariot will go whichever way the White Lion chariot goes.
-Shadow Warriors will get rolled into some other faction, maybe. As a dual kit in another faction, they may survive. Maybe take over for Glade Guard, if they are cut?
-Skycutter/Sky Warden will get the axe,there is really nothing that its linked to designwise.
Shadowblades
-Rolled into something else. If Darkling Covens survive the cull, they’d work there, with Assassins as the personal henchmen of the Sorceress and the Dark Riders as their scouts/messengers. Dark Riders could work in Order Draconis as squires. These kits should have been rolled into the Daughters of Khaine book, imo. The variant build of the Dark Riders were, ffs.
Order Serpentis/Order Draconis
-There is some overlap between these two. Might even call it bloat? Thematically different, but essentially the same thing divided along the defunct Dark/High Elf lines. If any had to go, I’d say its Darconis (High Elf), as I’d bet the Serpentis stuff sells better, and it still has alot of similiar designed kits in the range. Definitely better sculpts in Order Serpentis, imo.
Eldritch Council
-Axe this faction or combine it with the Collegiate Arcane or Order Draconis, as they share the dragon kit.
-Their infantry and sole batteline, Swordmasters, are Finecast. Not looking good for them.
Ironweld
-Cannon/Organ gun is designed as complimentary to the Dispossessed Duardin Warriors. If they go, these will follow.
- Irondrakes move to Ironweld. Seems silly that dudes carrying flamethrowers aren’t part of the ‘artillery” faction.
Darkling Covens
-These seem safe, as they have popular kits, and their High Elf mirror units were axed at the birth of AoS. They get GHB love, so thats also a good sign.
-Always felt that the Black Guard/Executioners and and maybe Sorceress kits should have gone into the Daughters of Khaine book.
-The Darkshards/Dreadspears/Bleakswords should get rolled into Order Serpentis as the footmen of the elite Knight class. Which would essentially
give Order Serpentis most of the roster that Dark Elves had in WHFB, but I’m cool with that.
Scourge Privateers
-Think these guys will be safe as well, despite their limited roster, though they should get the Hydra back from Order Serpentis.
Phoenix Temple
-Probably safe.
- I think Sisters of the Watch should get rolled into this faction as the female members of the temple. They have flaming bows and arrows, so depending on how they are painted, could be like a mirror to the Flamespyre/Frostheart Phoenix.
I think some of this culling should have been done 4 years ago, and I also think(as most do) GW screwed up with dividing up the factions like they did and this Free Peoples book is their latest attempt to fix it.
I believe the fate of many of the Aelf kits will hinge on what they do for Malerion/Tyrion/Teclis and their followers.
What does everyone think of the elimination list? Off the mark or did I miss anything?
And my wishlisting for combining/moving around units into other factions?
*Though they still sell the Zombie kit that probably pre-dates the Kirby era, so who the feth really knows what they are thinking when cutting/keeping their kits.
That's because they are terrible. I remember when they came out. They weren't even great then, and didn't age well at all. I think those are the oldest plastic kits now that are still in production (they are older than the Khorne Berserkers), but not the oldest period (that would be IIRC Ragnar Blackmane who I think came out at the end of Rogue Trader/early 2nd edition!)
Yeah they are one of the few really old kits that just doesn't look good at all by modern standards. Then again AoS has a lot of legacy stuff kicking around, though at least some of the metal (eg skaven) still looks darn good even years later!
Wayniac wrote: That's because they are terrible. I remember when they came out. They weren't even great then, and didn't age well at all. I think those are the oldest plastic kits now that are still in production (they are older than the Khorne Berserkers), but not the oldest period (that would be IIRC Ragnar Blackmane who I think came out at the end of Rogue Trader/early 2nd edition!)
At least they look better than the plastic rat ogres!
IMO Gloomspite is one of the best battletomes they have put out. The allegiance ability is a bit swingy but definitely fun, and there's a huge unit roster with plenty of room for themed forces. Arachnaroks just got a bit of a point decrease, alleviating the main element of the book that was sub-par. I would say the rockguts stand out as being overpowered; they got a point decrease they mathematically did not need. 60-man stabba squads are also a bit op but that is countered by the impracticality of using that many models, and many armies have anti-horde tools to negate their advantage.
Ah great, as long as they’re fun and can somewhat compete I’m happy. The models look ace and just scream enjoyment. Them and the new Free Cities book coming soon have me getting back into Sigmar.
Glade Guard have joined the White Lions as No longer available.
Darkling Coven stuff temporarily out of stock.
Freeguild General dual foot/horse kit and Cannon/Organ Gun No longer available.
Gyrocopter/Bomber temporarily out of stock.
War Altar/ Flagellants temporarily out of stock.
Dragon Noble dual foot/horse kit temporarily out of stock.
The temporary stuff is most likely rebasing/reboxing.
UK site still only lists the White Lions in No Longer for Sale, though I can see glade guard joining them logically - they are a much older kit and the Aelves have quite a few archery units that are much more modern plastics.
Us site might also confuse the pattern because its going to have local stock issues arise faster than the UK site (same for any overseas really). So some "out of stock" might be rebasing but could also just be local shortage.
Would be very surprised to see the General kit go, and reasonably surprised to see the cannon/organ gun go. Glade guard I won't be sad to see go; when I actually got to see the kit in person I realized it has not aged well, they look very stiff and misproportioned.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Would be very surprised to see the General kit go, and reasonably surprised to see the cannon/organ gun go. Glade guard I won't be sad to see go; when I actually got to see the kit in person I realized it has not aged well, they look very stiff and misproportioned.
Frankly, that's because the instructions for them were always garbage and people weren't assembling the kits right. They're a kit that really requires someone to actually put a little bit of TLC into the models...or just a new kit period.
I'm not holding my breath on Glade Guard going away though. People tend to forget that when things are Direct Only(Glade Guard and White Lions both are, as are the Wild Riders and other Wanderers items)? They don't actually come in a box other than a white mail order box.
Also, they literally stated that they would let us know what kits were going away...and it's important to note that Glade Guard are still one of those weird count boxes. It's 16/box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: UK site still only lists the White Lions in No Longer for Sale, though I can see glade guard joining them logically - they are a much older kit and the Aelves have quite a few archery units that are much more modern plastics.
There's two archer kits that "are much more modern plastics"...and one of them builds as waving swords around like ninnies.
Also, Glade Guard just really suffer from the cloak/head attachment point. It really needs someone to work a bit more on it. I've been slowly adding fur collars and a bit more cloak to make it work.
Us site might also confuse the pattern because its going to have local stock issues arise faster than the UK site (same for any overseas really). So some "out of stock" might be rebasing but could also just be local shortage.
Well, as I said in my larger post above, I think they are doing away with the more generic stuff and/or abandoning that style of Dwarf miniature. They had already axed the Finecast characters who were designed to match them, as well as the miners. I don’t believe that era of Dwarf miniatures are long for this world. Wouldn’t be shocked to see the Warrior/Thunderer/Quarreler kit follow shortly. Think of it like the Greenskinz all over again.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Glade guard I won't be sad to see go; when I actually got to see the kit in person I realized it has not aged well, they look very stiff and misproportioned.
I think they only lasted so long because of an excess stock.
I wouldn't put too much in the labels "Temporarily out of Stock" and "No longer available" as a lot of kits have had both labels and then returned. Usually it is just reboxing and/or rebranding. Considering that they are now going to be putting a lot of units under a different moniker it might mean that a DB ID is no longer available, but might appear under a different name and faction soon. Only time will tell though.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Would be very surprised to see the General kit go, and reasonably surprised to see the cannon/organ gun go. Glade guard I won't be sad to see go; when I actually got to see the kit in person I realized it has not aged well, they look very stiff and misproportioned.
Frankly, that's because the instructions for them were always garbage and people weren't assembling the kits right.
I was assembling them myself; it was definitely the kit.
GW did say they'd let us know; but at the same time if a kit is going off sale and they run out of stock and one of the reasons it was going off-sale was the mould braking/wearing out then some might vanish early as you can bet since the new Tome was announced sales will have gone up.
Both from those getting ready and those wanting to complete armies and get models before any wave of sales when GW announces formally what is going.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Would be very surprised to see the General kit go, and reasonably surprised to see the cannon/organ gun go. Glade guard I won't be sad to see go; when I actually got to see the kit in person I realized it has not aged well, they look very stiff and misproportioned.
Frankly, that's because the instructions for them were always garbage and people weren't assembling the kits right.
I was assembling them myself; it was definitely the kit.
What year did the instructions say?
The mould most definitely has not aged well. Any pre-2012 are in good shape though, but as I mentioned one of the things that really held the kit back was the join spot for the head/cloak.
Also, some leg/torso combinations just don't work. You can definitely spot which ones were intended to be used to build Scouts.
Overread wrote: GW did say they'd let us know; but at the same time if a kit is going off sale and they run out of stock and one of the reasons it was going off-sale was the mould braking/wearing out then some might vanish early as you can bet since the new Tome was announced sales will have gone up.
Both from those getting ready and those wanting to complete armies and get models before any wave of sales when GW announces formally what is going.
Summary: stock control systems are "stupid" and rely on SKU key IDs. If an item's packaging, name, reference, sometimes price, or any number of things change the system won't know until a tech does a manual or batch change to a new key ID. This results in "no longer on sale" until the new stock and its ID are put in the system. Temporaily out of stock means the ID key stays, it's just out of stock. None of this means things are not being removed, but none of it means they are. I don't think GW's manufacturing is capable of making smooth transitions to new stock for most items, so this problem comes up.
We wait until GW makes its announcement on the matter, as they said they would. All else is speculation. I speculate only few items are cut for good. They stated warscrolls, not kits, will be removed. Could be a sly way to ease uncertainty, but I think it's just stuff that's been floating out there without miniatures in production, like Isle of Blood/Spire of Dawn items and old High Elf and other models like artillery that have non legends warscrolls but nothing for sale..
I'll be using my Spire of Dawn High Warden as a General on Griffon as that's exactly what it is. Reavers can be Outriders, Spireguard can be Archers or Guard, and if it comes to it, Swordmasters can be Greatswords. Swordmasters are baked into Core Rulebook Eldritch Council lore, though, so it'd be odd to see them go. I don't think White Lions are going away, too unique and full of opportunity. These things just need good rules to use them, which Cities of Sigmar can provide.
I'm just some person on the internet, though. I could be wrong.
Edit: I'm incorrect about the "warscroll only" statement. Re-read the Warhammer Community post and it mentions Order units leaving the range and moving to Legends. It is concerning that nothing in the post, from the images to the text, mentions any High Elf unit, even though they're baked into the lore. Wait and see.
I was soooo tempted last night. My local store has such a slow turnover, they not only had a couple copied of Skirmish (which I went there to buy a copy of, knowing they had them), but they even had a Greenskinz Start Collecting box still, and for 75 bucks.
Do I still need some more vanilla Orcs.....do I????
Well, as I said in my larger post above, I think they are doing away with the more generic stuff and/or abandoning that style of Dwarf miniature. They had already axed the Finecast characters who were designed to match them, as well as the miners. I don’t believe that era of Dwarf miniatures are long for this world. Wouldn’t be shocked to see the Warrior/Thunderer/Quarreler kit follow shortly. Think of it like the Greenskinz all over again.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Glade guard I won't be sad to see go; when I actually got to see the kit in person I realized it has not aged well, they look very stiff and misproportioned.
I think they only lasted so long because of an excess stock.
I think the cannon/organ gun kit will stay or will be replaced with a new model, for the simple reason that they've just been made mercenaries. Would be strange to remove them a couple of months after
To people who say GW is getting rid of "generic fantasy stuff" please note that Daughters of Khaine got 3 new models - 1 is Medusa, one is basically a harpy and the last was a massive mash up of the two ideas.
Ideoneth has sharks
Stormcast are just beefy people in beefy armour and one can argue GW was a bit part in starting that trope with their own space marines.
Ergo GW is still doing generic stuff! They just rename it to non-generic attempting names. Though medusa to melusai is kinda a lazy way of them saying "its different" but its not really that different
Creating something that is completely original is impossible and more often than not 3rd party studios can make their own versions as long as they do slight differences.
The big thing GW wanted to do was to differentiate itself from core mainstream fantasy(LotR-type stuff) so when you see Sigmar stuff you know it is fantasy in a league of its own. GW has achieved that, especially with the release of Soul Wars, so they can be much more relaxed about the rest of the setting.
I think the cannon/organ gun kit will stay or will be replaced with a new model, for the simple reason that they've just been made mercenaries. Would be strange to remove them a couple of months after
Depends on their future expectations. If they want you to run Dispossessed themed armies they will keep it so the dwarves can run some artillery.
Honestly artillery is in really short supply for most armies. GW cut a lot of the artillery models out of some forces. Aelves lost all the bolt throwers; Chaos lost their massive hell cannon etc....
Overread wrote: Honestly artillery is in really short supply for most armies. GW cut a lot of the artillery models out of some forces. Aelves lost all the bolt throwers; Chaos lost their massive hell cannon etc....
True, but artillery seems reserved for armies that might need it more. Stormcast have their super bolt thrower, but they are also elite and you tend to have fewer models so they need to get some kills before being overrun. Giving Dispossessed proper artillery would make up for some of their stunted movement speed.
auticus wrote: So long as then they also (dispossessed) don't then get move buffs additionally.
Running joke in my group is "as I am playing Nurgle, a slow army, my infantry will be running 16" across the board then charging you."
Yeah. In Kingmaker I have the PtG portion where you get no faction allegiance abilities. And a nurgle player was displeased saying his army was now unplayable because he could no longer turn 1 run and charge.
auticus wrote: So long as then they also (dispossessed) don't then get move buffs additionally.
Running joke in my group is "as I am playing Nurgle, a slow army, my infantry will be running 16" across the board then charging you."
Yeah. In Kingmaker I have the PtG portion where you get no faction allegiance abilities. And a nurgle player was displeased saying his army was now unplayable because he could no longer turn 1 run and charge.
Overread wrote: Honestly artillery is in really short supply for most armies. GW cut a lot of the artillery models out of some forces. Aelves lost all the bolt throwers; Chaos lost their massive hell cannon etc....
True, but artillery seems reserved for armies that might need it more. Stormcast have their super bolt thrower, but they are also elite and you tend to have fewer models so they need to get some kills before being overrun. Giving Dispossessed proper artillery would make up for some of their stunted movement speed.
Yes, and hopefully not eliminating lots of the units (when the Free peoples book comes out). Whether with arty or other rules older armies (and any army being updated) need to be brought in line with Sigmar 2.0 So it might be a combination of arty updates as well as something to help with the slow dwarf movement.
Eldarsif wrote: I would also add that the Dwarf Artillery model is rather nifty and beautiful imo.
Agree!! I really like the grudge thrower for example - but I fear it will disappear.
Am I crazy or hasn’t it been gone for years at this point?
Grudge thrower, duardin bolt thrower and flame cannon at pg 32 of the 2019 battle profiles among some other units (warscrolls at GW website). Dwarf miners are at pg 33. I used the grudge thrower in a local tournament about a month ago.
What I meant was that the Grudge Thrower hasn’t been available to purchase since early AoS. Seeing you say you’ll fear it disappearing made me think it was still available somewhere.
I misunderstood. Yeah I don't think items like grudge throwers have been avail for some time- mine is from long ago. But GW provided some rules and points costs to use those units in Sigmar. But with the new Free peoples book its the perfect time to remove those units they dont plan to update with new kits.
So ironbreakers got a plastic kit - great. But warriors, quarrelers/thunderers, miners, etc haven't. Now some of them may get renewed (new model) in the future sometime so GW may leave them in the book, but I am concerned the amount that could disappear with the new book ( though some might reappear in later years) .
I would like to play dwarves as a mono army (all or mostly) but I don't see that happening (could be wrong) - I expect it will be make armies from combos of forces from the battletome.
So if a large portion of my duardin/dwarf army becomes useless I have to decide do i want to buy other Free Peoples units to cover things off; buy and play a different army (I like ogres so BCR and gutbusters are possible); or if the losses of units are high I might stop playing Sigmar.
So is the current state of mortal wounds in this game as disgusting as it looks? Some armies seem to do an inordinate amount of them without trying, which sucks for home games. Is it something that seems to be getting stripped back, or is GW still handing them out like candy? I’m concerned with them and the way summoning works, the game’s balance is a little flippatyfloop.
I would like to play dwarves as a mono army (all or mostly) but I don't see that happening (could be wrong) - I expect it will be make armies from combos of forces from the battletome.
I imagine you will be able to build mono-race lists, but as the book is called Cities of Sigmar, it'll be sub par to city-themed lists. Which honestly makes sense, when you read any of the books that involve free cities there's usually a mix of human, dwarf and elf forces fighting common enemy.
Mortal wounds are one of the pillars of minmax play. Max summoning (free pts) is another. Both will easily tip a game if one player is “optimizing” it and the other is not.
While true, not ALL armies can do that or NEED to.
Many top lists didnt use MW's other than splash of MW's here or there. Some just has solid stats with good re-rolls, like BoC Tzaangors on Disks, re-roll all hits/wounds, with rend and 2D or D3. Or HoS just solid Heroes doing good damage.
Tho Summoning is very strong, again not all armies win with summon, look at at Skaven, they can do some good MW's with a couple units and a spell or 2, but also Plague monks can just get 7 attacks each while fighting multi times doing some rend and some 2 damage.
There are always outliers. Its still the pillars of play to build on for most. The best strategy in AOS is to minimuze opponent agency as much as possible.
Tiberius501 wrote: So is the current state of mortal wounds in this game as disgusting as it looks? Some armies seem to do an inordinate amount of them without trying, which sucks for home games. Is it something that seems to be getting stripped back, or is GW still handing them out like candy? I’m concerned with them and the way summoning works, the game’s balance is a little flippatyfloop.
It's bad, but as a broad issue I'd say less of a problem than summoning.
I would like to play dwarves as a mono army (all or mostly) but I don't see that happening (could be wrong) - I expect it will be make armies from combos of forces from the battletome.
I imagine you will be able to build mono-race lists, but as the book is called Cities of Sigmar, it'll be sub par to city-themed lists. Which honestly makes sense, when you read any of the books that involve free cities there's usually a mix of human, dwarf and elf forces fighting common enemy.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, its just there is the potential for a lot of my duardin units to be removed from the game as the justification could easily be that other former mono armies have units that can provide units to do X Y or Z in the Free Cities tome as you indicated.
Obviously we have to wait and see = as some units may disappear for good while other may have a new kit or may be removed now with the possibility of returning at a later date. I see units like thunderers disappearing as irondrakes are now the shooty unit with a new kit - and that would mean quarrelers would go as well since dual kit. Warriors are an old kit so I see them disappearing as dwarven troop type units are Longbeards, Ironbreakers and Hammerers (all using the new kits). Also see miners disappearing - though I thought they were a great kit and unit for plopping up on an objective; some of the metal artillery units will likely disappear and the older leaders. It just potentially could take a large amount out of my collection at one time so while I await the Free Cities book I am also nervous about it
I played my first every game the other day with my 1000 pts of gloomspite gitz from 2xlooncurse boxes against a friends 1000pts of khorne that he just got from trading his nighthaunt army from the starter sets. He was dealing enough mortal wounds to wipe out full units in his hero phase alone. It was insane and really turned me off the game. The only strategy I can think of to counter it is for me to just use my squig hopper and boingrot bounders to charge over his units and attack his priests directly. just ignoring everything else. I'm hoping once I get up to 2000pts built and can bring my own wizards that I will be able to compete on a more even level.
Unfortunately the game is not balanced very well, and is a deckbuilding exercise where often one person will win based on their list vs the other.
That being said, once you get more games under your belt you will recognize the pillars of listbuilding and be able to build better lists that won't flop like a wet towel.
I'd say the gloomspite gitz book is a solid "C" average book, has a lot of fun entries in it, but you will be challenged by a lot because there are not a lot of i-win buttons.
Khorne is almost on par with you though, maybe slightly more powerful (C+ maybe a B- list depending on the power build being used) so once you figure out how to do epic tons of damage back to your opponent you will find the games are a bit more fun.
That unfortunately does require you to build a certain way though with a certain subset of models.
The key feature of AOS (and 40k) is to minimize player agency, meaning the more you can do things to your opponent that he cannot respond to or just stands there helplessly watching, the better off you will be doing. This is not a bug or a defect either, its an intended feature that a lot (a lot) of people love. Just because you have 2000 points and your opponent has 2000 points, most often does not mean the two armies are balanced and a good game will be had unless both players are tuning as hard as possible.
I do notice that Khorne, while not an S-tier army, can often build very unfun (for their opponent) lists. Not the sort of crushing list that dominates tournaments, but the sort of list that you get frustrated playing against due to their myriad of gimmicks and interrupting abilities. Just a very unfun army to play against.
Wayniac wrote: I do notice that Khorne, while not an S-tier army, can often build very unfun (for their opponent) lists. Not the sort of crushing list that dominates tournaments, but the sort of list that you get frustrated playing against due to their myriad of gimmicks and interrupting abilities. Just a very unfun army to play against.
Matters aren't helped that a lot of those units are easily available via the old starter set.
Yeah. I'd say the problem I see quite a bit is that new people walk into the store, see the models they really like, and then figure "if i am building say 1000 pts, and my buddy builds 1000 pts... that we'll have a good game."
Because thats logical.
And no one tells them different. And starter forces are a logical first step for a lot of people.
The game of AOS has a lot of unfun elements sprinkled in it. But as people like to say a lot on social media... its all broke so none of its broke. You just have to know that going in, and know what the broke is so you don't waste time and money on stinkers.
I was speaking with an individual interested in getting into wargames the other day, and had to explain that as diplomatically as possible. By his reaction I feel that is another potential player lost to my community to balance. I should be used to it by now but it is still frustrating.
Depends also on the point of view of the recruiter. If he has a bad opinion of the game and talk about it, no matter how hard he tries to hide it, it will show eventually - and the guy who hear that will have more chances to have a bad first impression as well.
balmong7 wrote: I played my first every game the other day with my 1000 pts of gloomspite gitz from 2xlooncurse boxes against a friends 1000pts of khorne that he just got from trading his nighthaunt army from the starter sets. He was dealing enough mortal wounds to wipe out full units in his hero phase alone. It was insane and really turned me off the game. The only strategy I can think of to counter it is for me to just use my squig hopper and boingrot bounders to charge over his units and attack his priests directly. just ignoring everything else. I'm hoping once I get up to 2000pts built and can bring my own wizards that I will be able to compete on a more even level.
I think getting smoked in your very first game is the norm, not the exception. That's not unique to AoS.
That also seems like a fairly small Gloomspite army even at 1K for what its worth, unless you are supplementing it with other minis in your collection?
I'd hang in there and keep at it, as it looks like you've quickly established target priority for the next game(his Hero's), and what unit to use (Bounders with their "flying" ability, decent MW output and rend make them great sniper type units for soft targets). That's huge, and particularly impressive to recognize that after your very first game. And your ideas for building to 2K seem sound as well. Hint: The Fungoid Cave Shaman is an absolute CP generating machine. You'll have no problems getting command abilities off, making your dudes that much better.
We've all been in your shoes. Its definitely easy to get into a doom and gloom funk, but I like the fact that you're already plotting your opponents destruction for the next game. I think you'll be alright once you get more games under your belt and start expanding your army out, as well as just understanding the game and your opponent better.
Sarouan wrote: Depends also on the point of view of the recruiter. If he has a bad opinion of the game and talk about it, no matter how hard he tries to hide it, it will show eventually - and the guy who hear that will have more chances to have a bad first impression as well.
Hard to imagine a recruiter having a bad opinion of the game. One thing to be playing a game a person doesn't like, and further to be recruiting for a game they don't like?
Personally, as an honest person, I cannot respond to the question "So two armies with equal points are evenly matched?" with "Yes." I can (and do) explain that once a person gets a bit of experience they can work things out, and that there are plenty of people willing to help new players, and that telling people ahead of time will let them bring appropriate lists, but I can't say two armies with equal points are evenly matched. And some people are just looking for the answer to be yes. I'm sure there's plenty of recruiters who would glaze over or ignore the answer to the question as best they could, but I don't do deception.
EDIT: To be clear I don't mean to imply you or anyone on here is dishonest.
balmong7 wrote: I played my first every game the other day with my 1000 pts of gloomspite gitz from 2xlooncurse boxes against a friends 1000pts of khorne that he just got from trading his nighthaunt army from the starter sets. He was dealing enough mortal wounds to wipe out full units in his hero phase alone. It was insane and really turned me off the game. The only strategy I can think of to counter it is for me to just use my squig hopper and boingrot bounders to charge over his units and attack his priests directly. just ignoring everything else. I'm hoping once I get up to 2000pts built and can bring my own wizards that I will be able to compete on a more even level.
I think getting smoked in your very first game is the norm, not the exception. That's not unique to AoS.
Sarouan wrote: Depends also on the point of view of the recruiter. If he has a bad opinion of the game and talk about it, no matter how hard he tries to hide it, it will show eventually - and the guy who hear that will have more chances to have a bad first impression as well.
Hard to imagine a recruiter having a bad opinion of the game. One thing to be playing a game a person doesn't like, and further to be recruiting for a game they don't like?
Personally, as an honest person, I cannot respond to the question "So two armies with equal points are evenly matched?" with "Yes." I can (and do) explain that once a person gets a bit of experience they can work things out, and that there are plenty of people willing to help new players, and that telling people ahead of time will let them bring appropriate lists, but I can't say two armies with equal points are evenly matched. And some people are just looking for the answer to be yes. I'm sure there's plenty of recruiters who would glaze over or ignore the answer to the question as best they could, but I don't do deception.
.
Honestly two magic decks with 60 cards in them won't be evenly matched at all if they aren't built to the same skill level and heck a beginner without any "deck theory" behind them might well use far too much or too little land and thus break their deck that way, long before we even consider power curves or combos or cost distribution.
It's the same for most games in truth, very few games out there would let you put down just "anything" and get a fair game.
As for recruiters with a negative opinion I've seen those! Or rather I've seen people try to drum up interest in game, but will badmouth the game/developers at every turn they get. They might not do both in the same breath, but they do them close enough that it counts. Online you can often spot it easier because you can see a persons conversation history, whilst in reality those complaints might get hidden from a new person to a club because they aren't in all the background chatter yet. Though a regular club member who isn't yet an AoS player might well pick up that "Dave" is always badmouthing the game/GW but still tries to get others involved now and then.
So yes self-defeating recruiters can and do exist in the world, though often they don't realise they are doing it.
Most of our new players dont have “recruiters”. They come in with a friend and buy starter forces with the expectation that even pointed forces are balanced against each other.
One of the two chooses poorly and gets smoked several times and it is then that they learn the truth of gw points and community expectations and choose to churn and burn or cut their financial losses at that point.
Some will ask us what forces are garbage first. Those again are usually all ccg players that know how this racket works. They are about half of our new players.
The gas to the fire is when they learn that this style of churn and burn is desired (it is hard for some people to wrap their minds around why people would enjoy being forced to update their collection annually) and that gw games really are the only game in town for miniatures.
This effect is tripled for 40k as it attracts exponentially more people at the gate.
Often when a new player cuts and runs and puts their stuff up for sale, people who anticipate the stock of those units rising with an faq jump all over it for pennies on the dollar.
We call it the cycle of life.
A few find our narrative campaign stuff and stick for the open play house ruling of the things we find most negative. A few drift to pro warhammer at one of our pro player tournament clubs. A lot have a shelf life of less than a year...which to me is bad.
But they paid their money into the company so bottom line is it works.
Sarouan wrote: Depends also on the point of view of the recruiter. If he has a bad opinion of the game and talk about it, no matter how hard he tries to hide it, it will show eventually - and the guy who hear that will have more chances to have a bad first impression as well.
Hard to imagine a recruiter having a bad opinion of the game. One thing to be playing a game a person doesn't like, and further to be recruiting for a game they don't like?
Personally, as an honest person, I cannot respond to the question "So two armies with equal points are evenly matched?" with "Yes." I can (and do) explain that once a person gets a bit of experience they can work things out, and that there are plenty of people willing to help new players, and that telling people ahead of time will let them bring appropriate lists, but I can't say two armies with equal points are evenly matched. And some people are just looking for the answer to be yes. I'm sure there's plenty of recruiters who would glaze over or ignore the answer to the question as best they could, but I don't do deception.
.
Honestly two magic decks with 60 cards in them won't be evenly matched at all if they aren't built to the same skill level and heck a beginner without any "deck theory" behind them might well use far too much or too little land and thus break their deck that way, long before we even consider power curves or combos or cost distribution.
It's the same for most games in truth, very few games out there would let you put down just "anything" and get a fair game.
True, but the cost to start playing MTG is incomparable to Warhammer when combining money, time, effort, etc. Also it it's more than putting down *anything* its that some units or even while factions are simply poor; I dread encountering a new player saying "yeah I'm super excited to start playing Kharadron!" Because how do you break it to them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: As for recruiters with a negative opinion I've seen those! Or rather I've seen people try to drum up interest in game, but will badmouth the game/developers at every turn they get. They might not do both in the same breath, but they do them close enough that it counts. Online you can often spot it easier because you can see a persons conversation history, whilst in reality those complaints might get hidden from a new person to a club because they aren't in all the background chatter yet. Though a regular club member who isn't yet an AoS player might well pick up that "Dave" is always badmouthing the game/GW but still tries to get others involved now and then.
So yes self-defeating recruiters can and do exist in the world, though often they don't realise they are doing it.
Ohh, that makes sense. One of the reasons I do most of my complaining online
Yes, there are bad recruiters and good recruiters. And yes, they usually don't notice what they're doing "bad". It's a job in itself.
auticus wrote: A lot have a shelf life of less than a year...which to me is bad.
But they paid their money into the company so bottom line is it works.
I think it is more by design than anything else. Competition sells, and changing the meta is a way to make players buy something new. Fact that the General Handbook has a cycle of more or less 1 year serves that purpose, IMHO.
Games nowaday aren't made to have everything in the core book at the start. Usually, they're sold more in smaller parts on a longer time, so that you keep having something the players will buy. It's not just GW, TBH. You can see the same pattern in other companies, even those that have the reputation to be "player friendly".
Awesome! But if you are playing people that have a min/max bent, you will need to chase the meta along with them to have good games. Or at the minimum be ok with having your face rubbed in pooh the whole time.
auticus wrote: Awesome! But if you are playing people that have a min/max bent, you will need to chase the meta along with them to have good games. Or at the minimum be ok with having your face rubbed in pooh the whole time.
No, I just talk with people to know and agree on what will make a game interesting between us. In the end, it's all down to the lists, not the points. Surprisingly, it works...takes some time, sure, but that's how you make new good friends as well, after all. That's why I understand Jervis Johnson when he was talking about the social contracts of games. I have come to believe it is way more important than any set of rules, no matter how tightly written or seen as balanced as they could.
But then, I'm not living in the US and don't have the same culture there, so I guess it may sound a bit strange or weird on the other side of the ocean.
It doesn't sound strange or weird at all. Its just not very likely to work over here as it does over there.
An example is the thread in tournament discussion about going off the rails etc 40k hate.
For a great many folks over here, asking them to not max out their list is seen at the very least as mildly irritating and at the worst, a direct insult.
The social contract of the game in the states is often die fast, die hard, go max and play as hard as possible.
Which is why when we have global forums, people look at each other funny because the cultures are often so very different.
*to stop someone pedantically stating "not everyone is like that", thats true. Not everyone is like that. But its common enough here that it does affect how we view the game and what type of games we get to play.
auticus wrote: It doesn't sound strange or weird at all. Its just not very likely to work over here as it does over there.
An example is the thread in tournament discussion about going off the rails etc 40k hate.
For a great many folks over here, asking them to not max out their list is seen at the very least as mildly irritating and at the worst, a direct insult.
The social contract of the game in the states is often die fast, die hard, go max and play as hard as possible.
Which is why when we have global forums, people look at each other funny because the cultures are often so very different.
*to stop someone pedantically stating "not everyone is like that", thats true. Not everyone is like that. But its common enough here that it does affect how we view the game and what type of games we get to play.
Do you mean online or in person ? Because I have found that the tone is very different if you have your opponent in front of you rather than chatting with him on the net. When I find agreements, it is always in person. Online, it's...more difficult, I admit.
NinthMusketeer wrote: True, but the cost to start playing MTG is incomparable to Warhammer when combining money, time, effort, etc. Also it it's more than putting down *anything* its that some units or even while factions are simply poor; I dread encountering a new player saying "yeah I'm super excited to start playing Kharadron!" Because how do you break it to them?
On the cost side it depends - you can get started in Magic with a premade deck for a tiny cost; and you can get started in AoS with a Getting Started set. Sure the Wargame costs more (plus more time with at least building) but yes the costs are different. However that premade magic deck is not only just "as bad" as the getting started warhammer set; but its also comparably cheaper tahn building a higher tier deck which might well have quite a cost if you've got to hunt down specific popular cards (or run the gauntlet of random chance).
Also the Kharadron player is super easy right now. You get all keen on the cool steam-punk dwarves with airships; hooked on the really neat airship models and then note that they've likely got a brand new book coming within the next year or so. So whilst they are still learning the game (few people are going to be pure novices and jump into winning competitive games in their first half a year to year of play) and still building cool models they've got time before a brand new book drops with abilities, alliance features and suchlike. You can easily fill them in on the next 2 confirmed and at least 1 almost confirmed Battletomes we know of over the next few months (ogers is basically confirmed because of the new model).
I agree its not ideal news, but how its presented is important; plus lets not forget this isn't the last few editions of Warhammer. You're not telling them "Ok so in the next 5 years you might see a book if you're lucky" its "in the next year there will be a book"
Do you mean online or in person ? Because I have found that the tone is very different if you have your opponent in front of you rather than chatting with him on the net. When I find agreements, it is always in person. Online, it's...more difficult, I admit.
Either. Though usually the nasty words aren't spoken in person, they are reserved for online communication. However, I've watched the communication go down and it isn't overtly rude. However the competitive person makes it clear he's not dumbing his list down and the other player usually acquiesces (and then the game is as you'd expect, a one sided stomp fest).
You're not telling them "Ok so in the next 5 years you might see a book if you're lucky" its "in the next year there will be a book"
Very few people would be thrilled to hear either one of those things had they dropped $500 or more on an army only to find out its a flaming turd because the community wants its meta churn.
Well, I did meet competitive players who were very stubborn and hard to talk with, so yes I understand what you're saying, Auticus. I feel honestly sad for you that you seem surrounded by people not willing to talk/compromise/find another way to play in your area.
NinthMusketeer wrote: True, but the cost to start playing MTG is incomparable to Warhammer when combining money, time, effort, etc. Also it it's more than putting down *anything* its that some units or even while factions are simply poor; I dread encountering a new player saying "yeah I'm super excited to start playing Kharadron!" Because how do you break it to them?
On the cost side it depends - you can get started in Magic with a premade deck for a tiny cost; and you can get started in AoS with a Getting Started set. Sure the Wargame costs more (plus more time with at least building) but yes the costs are different. However that premade magic deck is not only just "as bad" as the getting started warhammer set; but its also comparably cheaper tahn building a higher tier deck which might well have quite a cost if you've got to hunt down specific popular cards (or run the gauntlet of random chance).
Also the Kharadron player is super easy right now. You get all keen on the cool steam-punk dwarves with airships; hooked on the really neat airship models and then note that they've likely got a brand new book coming within the next year or so. So whilst they are still learning the game (few people are going to be pure novices and jump into winning competitive games in their first half a year to year of play) and still building cool models they've got time before a brand new book drops with abilities, alliance features and suchlike. You can easily fill them in on the next 2 confirmed and at least 1 almost confirmed Battletomes we know of over the next few months (ogers is basically confirmed because of the new model).
I agree its not ideal news, but how its presented is important; plus lets not forget this isn't the last few editions of Warhammer. You're not telling them "Ok so in the next 5 years you might see a book if you're lucky" its "in the next year there will be a book"
To be fair, what makes Magic easy to get into(and many comparable CCG) is the fact that they have Draft playstyles that allow people of varying collections to meet on an equal footing.
Here is the thing though: GW is very aware of the fact that the buy in for their cores games are high. It's the reason I think they made Kill Team and Warcry. They want you to be able to buy in slowly and surely yet still play.
I think getting smoked in your very first game is the norm, not the exception. That's not unique to AoS.
That also seems like a fairly small Gloomspite army even at 1K for what its worth, unless you are supplementing it with other minis in your collection?
I'd hang in there and keep at it, as it looks like you've quickly established target priority for the next game(his Hero's), and what unit to use (Bounders with their "flying" ability, decent MW output and rend make them great sniper type units for soft targets). That's huge, and particularly impressive to recognize that after your very first game. And your ideas for building to 2K seem sound as well. Hint: The Fungoid Cave Shaman is an absolute CP generating machine. You'll have no problems getting command abilities off, making your dudes that much better.
We've all been in your shoes. Its definitely easy to get into a doom and gloom funk, but I like the fact that you're already plotting your opponents destruction for the next game. I think you'll be alright once you get more games under your belt and start expanding your army out, as well as just understanding the game and your opponent better.
Just keep playing, my dude.
the list ended up right at 1k points but I was low on models for sure. 2x loonboss on cave squig, 10x bounders, 10x hoppers, 18x cave squigs, bought 1 cp for 50pts to fill out the list, and bought the squig rider battalion.
To fill out my 2000pts I've currently got the mollog and zarbag warbands from nighthaunt, and the Loonking and a box of grots at home ready to be painted. A mangler squig is my next purchase, and the endless spells shortly after. Long term plan is to fill out to 2000 pts of grots and squigs both, but starting with whichever is performing better in my games.
I would say that the khorne list was for sure an unfun list to go against because I had no defense for it. Once I have a wizard do I get any defenses against the prayers and judgements? or are the special snowflake "totally not wizards" guys just totally immune to all my anti-wizard stuff? (I was really annoyed when I got all his stuff under the bad moon and he was like "too bad I'm not a wizard. no penalty for me")
Priests and judgements of Khorne aren’t wizards/spells, so you can’t dispel them. But they can absolutely dispel your stuff. I know it seems unfair, but do what you said; target his priests and his army will fall apart. Oddly enough, Khorne mortals are kind of wet tissue if they don’t have heroes backing them up.
In aos, hero sniping is both trivially easy and required. Most armies fall apart without their magic the gathering buffs that heroes give.
You want to be sure you can kill his heroes as fast as possible and protect your own. That is another tenant of listbuilding (particularly useful combined with ranged mortal wounds or high rend/damage attacks he cant save from)
Hero sniping is an important tactic to be aware of and utilize when appropriate. While it is generally possible to kill any hero (or any unit, for that matter) you like if you put your mind to it, killing them can be more effort than it is worth. For most armies units without supporting heroes remain more effective than heroes without units to support. Also, the effort it takes to put 5 wounds on a hero often could have dealt significantly more damage to a unit instead. On the other hand heroes act as force multipliers, can be critical to an army, and could be entirely worth the extra effort to kill. Figuring it all out comes with experience.
Personally I view it as part of the game's tactics overall rather than an inherently bad element.
Updated the first post after the weekend events. I've removed the Aelf listings in general including Wanderers and Darkling Covens since its quite apparent that what we've got left of the Aelves is getting wrapped up into the Free Cities book.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Hero sniping is an important tactic to be aware of and utilize when appropriate. While it is generally possible to kill any hero (or any unit, for that matter) you like if you put your mind to it, killing them can be more effort than it is worth. For most armies units without supporting heroes remain more effective than heroes without units to support. Also, the effort it takes to put 5 wounds on a hero often could have dealt significantly more damage to a unit instead. On the other hand heroes act as force multipliers, can be critical to an army, and could be entirely worth the extra effort to kill. Figuring it all out comes with experience.
Personally I view it as part of the game's tactics overall rather than an inherently bad element.
All good points I agree with.
I will add that a lot of the support characters need to successfully cast spells to force multiply and players can use their own Unbinders to counter those. Maybe I am just in a very anti-magic heavy meta, but I have found that relying too much on spells to boost your units results in disappointment. Usually the casters that have the most reliable casting rate are those that can get multiple pluses to their casting roll.
Not really a "rumor", but attendees of the Open Day said that Beastclaw Raiders were stated to be in the upcoming Ogor book.
Is there any timeline on that book? I'm looking at building a BCR force for meeting engagements, and I'm not keen on buying the Battletome if its only going to be valid for a few weeks/months.
Not really a "rumor", but attendees of the Open Day said that Beastclaw Raiders were stated to be in the upcoming Ogor book.
Is there any timeline on that book? I'm looking at building a BCR force for meeting engagements, and I'm not keen on buying the Battletome if its only going to be valid for a few weeks/months.
Beastclaws were shown with a new leader in a video which specifically mentioned the Tithe of bones. The new Death faction is set to be released in October so it would suggest that Ogors are going to get some new content around then. Considering that they've no battletome and releasing a new model on its own would be folly at this stage we can make the guess that from October we might see a new Battletome. I would estimate early November, but the latest December.
That would not just resolve and update Beastclaw Raiders and Gutbusters, but also mean that Destruction Grand Alliance was completed in terms of Tome support.
That would mean GW would hit Christmas with
1) All Destruction fully updated
2) All Death fully updated
3) All Order holding battletomes with only Seraphon and KO being out of date (not 2.0 ready)
4) Chaos being nearly battletome complete with Tzeentch in need of an update and only Slaves to Darkness/Everchosen being without a Tome.
I've heard rumour that Slaves to Darkness were set for a book this year, but that the delays from Sylvanath messed up the release order and Slaves has been pushed into next year. From a marketing point of view this sounds quite believable that GW would focus on getting all armies equipped with Tomes for the Christmas period when sales will peak; then only having to update 2 forces for Order going into 2020, which is fine because Seraphon and KO already have old Tomes and are quite well established. They wouldn't be expecting to lose models or change the lineup in a big way.
Slaves are the last outlier and I still think there's a small chance GW could push to get them released this year. Though considering how chock full their release windows already are (esp with Death and Sisters of Battle being two huge releases in tehir own right and all the specialist games), it might just be too much even at GW's current fast pace.
Is it just me or is there something wrong with the beastclaw raiders? I am seeing lots of folks dumping them off (I am one but for a different reason, not that I "hate" them, they just cost wayyyyyy too many points for my local meta)
thekingofkings wrote: Is it just me or is there something wrong with the beastclaw raiders? I am seeing lots of folks dumping them off (I am one but for a different reason, not that I "hate" them, they just cost wayyyyyy too many points for my local meta)
Currently most armies without a 2.0 battletome are fairly poor in the game. Many of the early Battletomes were only a collection of warscroll cards released at the time of printing so they aren't reworked like the 2.0 editions are. Furthermore they typically lack a lot of the allegiance abilities, equipment, spells etc.... So those forces can appear quite weak compared to armies which have 2.0 Battletomes. So some of those dumping might be simply playing the powercurve and dumping a weaker army for a stronger one. Others after the Aelf drop of models from Free Cities, might be panic dropping as they might think that the army could be dropped by GW - even though to date the only details we've got rumour of is taht Beastclaw will be united with Gutbusters under Ogors and that there's every chance both those halves might have their own "force" within the Tome to function - though at present we've no solid details at all.
Personally I'd say if you really love the sculpts get some; if you're on the fence wait until the Tome lands (likely this year); if you've already got them hold onto them. If they get dropped the models will likely go up in value somewhat (or at least maintain a decent secondhand price); if they are kept on they might get a good power increase and who knows could be the next powerful force.
thekingofkings wrote: Is it just me or is there something wrong with the beastclaw raiders? I am seeing lots of folks dumping them off (I am one but for a different reason, not that I "hate" them, they just cost wayyyyyy too many points for my local meta)
Currently most armies without a 2.0 battletome are fairly poor in the game. Many of the early Battletomes were only a collection of warscroll cards released at the time of printing so they aren't reworked like the 2.0 editions are. Furthermore they typically lack a lot of the allegiance abilities, equipment, spells etc.... So those forces can appear quite weak compared to armies which have 2.0 Battletomes. So some of those dumping might be simply playing the powercurve and dumping a weaker army for a stronger one. Others after the Aelf drop of models from Free Cities, might be panic dropping as they might think that the army could be dropped by GW - even though to date the only details we've got rumour of is taht Beastclaw will be united with Gutbusters under Ogors and that there's every chance both those halves might have their own "force" within the Tome to function - though at present we've no solid details at all.
Personally I'd say if you really love the sculpts get some; if you're on the fence wait until the Tome lands (likely this year); if you've already got them hold onto them. If they get dropped the models will likely go up in value somewhat (or at least maintain a decent secondhand price); if they are kept on they might get a good power increase and who knows could be the next powerful force.
I have a good size force, I am getting rid of them mostly because I play skirmish and warcry and they are way too points expensive (and large) thats how I noticed so many other lots being dumped off. but yeah, I see hwat you are saying and it makes some sense.
I'd hold onto them as currently there's no Warcry rules for them - a card pack coming out could change things a lot. Also the new mercenaries and monsters book could already add a few of the ogor units into either block.
Overread wrote: I'd hold onto them as currently there's no Warcry rules for them - a card pack coming out could change things a lot. Also the new mercenaries and monsters book could already add a few of the ogor units into either block.
with pretty much only 250 pts to work with, the frostlord alone is 420, so I am a bit on the "holy crap" side...I am likely to keep the frost sabres and the frostbrow hunter cause i can meet the minimum 3 models, 1 leader and come in at 200 pts, the rest is just too gawds awful expensive. 70 points for a single mournfang..ouch
They don't have a current army book so are garbage tier. They were the hotness a few years ago and a ton of people grabbed an army since they were also the golden bullet points: low model count AND super powerful.
When they get a new army book they'll likely be at least C tier unless the magic roulette lends them to be OP for a six month - year stretch.
auticus wrote: They don't have a current army book so are garbage tier. They were the hotness a few years ago and a ton of people grabbed an army since they were also the golden bullet points: low model count AND super powerful.
When they get a new army book they'll likely be at least C tier unless the magic roulette lends them to be OP for a six month - year stretch.
At the scale we are playing most "armies" are pretty good to go (skirmish at 250 from the new white dwarf rules) or warcry. All the reasons folks have said seem pretty reasonable to me, I was just not expecting it. I haven't kept up with the "big picture" as all our games are smaller (and the amount of terrain we use makes some models have nowhere to stand )
A big thing to keep in mind is that GW wants to be rid of finecast/failcast/resin models (excluding forgeworld) 'by 2020', which I think at this point probably is 'by the end of 2020'.
There's a butt-ton of characters out there that are still resin. Free Peoples dropping off a ton of old models definitely will help clear up a lot of space and make room for new plastic kits.
The things about the Order battletomes that have yet to be updated... KO are a relatively brand new force, coming out in early age of sigmar which is still not that old game-wise. They're beautiful sculpts, they just need some new rules to compete with the extra terrain and endless spells that all the other battletomes have been getting.
Seraphon, on the other hand, are mega out-of-date. There are a few models that hold up very well, like the Skinks and Stegadon, and they have a bunch of new models, like the skink starpriest, troglodon/carnosaur, bastilodon, and ripperdactyl/terradon riders, but then there's still a butt-load of stuff that's either very old or still in resin, including some staples of the line.
Slann are solid blocks of resin, and used to be solid blocks of metal before then. On top of that, you've got almost all of the saurus characters stuck in resin, including the very important astrolith bearer, the sunbloods, oldbloods, skink priests, the relatively new skink starseer, kroxigors, razordons, salamanders, chameleon skinks, and, of course, lord kroak.
That's half the range, and saurus warriors and guard and ESPECIALLY the saurus knights are WAY out of date by plastic's standards, looking hecka mushy and silly.
So, Seraphon really need a big update, not just to their model range but also to their weird lore to really cement them into the new realms. They had a neat story in Malign Portents where they were preparing to go to war against Nagash. Let's hope that pans out and we see some really cool things for them in 2020, because holy heck they need it.
It'd also be nice to be able to build armies that aren't 100% reliant upon the Slann and summoning/teleporting units. :/
Even if they aim for the end of 2020 there's still quite a lot of finecast to dump. Some armies aren't too bad, Tyranids have hardly any to shift.
Meanwhile a lot of armies have finecast, at least in 40K, in hero slots. Necrons have a load in hero slots which means either retiring a lot of characters or a lot of new sculpts to commission in plastic, which means some pretty steam mould investment in models that iwll take a very long time recoup that investment. I wonder if we might see combined hero kits where instead of 1 we might have 3 or 4 on a single sprue with the only downside being if GW really ramps up the price high.
Or we might see multi-kits with multiple parts that can build one of several hero models.
However they approach it dropping all finecast, or even a vast majority of it, by then would be fantastic.
I think that some AoS armies might lag, skaven still has a huge tonne of metal, but at least cast metal doesn't have the huge product support problems finecast still has with bubbles and casting errors.
KO really need a lot of care...right now the best way to play them is to ignore the boats and load up on basic infantry to just make them a spam list, or to run that weird clown-car ironclad list. If you actually want to bring a mix of boats and infantry, you're hurting your chance to win. It's an army with poor armor saves and not enough raw damage to stop enemy from getting into melee with sizeable chunk of their army.
Seraphon on the other hand have a solid list of units (with some stinkers), but abysmally old sculpts on about half of them.
I just grabbed one Beastclaw Raider Start Collecting, and I have two more on the way. There is almost no chance that GW sunsets the BCR plastic model kits when they are only 3 years old. I won't touch any of the finecast units, but fortunately, I won't have two, as three Start Collecting boxes can get to 2k.
As for the complete phaseout of finecast by 2020, that isn't happening. Too much to do, and there are instances which one would assume that GW is fine with special cases here and there. For instance, Sylvaneth still have the branchwraith, which is only available in finecast. Since they just received a new tome and that model stayed, I suspect it will stay for the duration of the book's lifespan.
There is almost no chance that GW sunsets the BCR plastic model kits when they are only 3 years old.
Be VERY careful about your expectations. The tomb kings line (the sphinx, snake riders, etc) were only a few years old as well when they were removed and while I was feeling pretty sure we would see those new kits return with a tomb king reboot, we see that the masters of the universe release has not shown those (yet). So ... maybe those new kits return in the masters of the universe bone mortarch line, but they definitely set a precedent for being removed even though being only a few years old and plastic.
Aye and don't forget we just lost a load of Aelf and other kits including things like dragon knights and the highelf dragon - which was one THE showcase for GW's dragons in plastic.
AoS has broken ALL the trends for releases in general; scrapping stuff that isn't that old; removing whole armies on a whim; a messy launch etc....I think until we see the last Battletome for 2.0 for an existing army/force rolled out we can't predict anything.
Hopefully once that happens we'll see things settle down into much more normal run-of-the-mill release patterns for GW.
Releases of new models, updated sculpts and only retiring models when they release new things (either updating releases or a swap). That's far more normal and healthy for GW and customers than AoS's current stance where almost anything can get the chop with little to no warning from GW.
That said I'd be shocked if the plastics from Beastclaw Raiders were dropped since without them there really isn't any faction there at all. Granted GW could drop them entirely for Gutbuster focused ogres, but I'd not be sure why; esp when at the very least the BCR gives Ogres some really neat and themed cavalry monsters.
As for the complete phaseout of finecast by 2020, that isn't happening. Too much to do, and there are instances which one would assume that GW is fine with special cases here and there. For instance, Sylvaneth still have the branchwraith, which is only available in finecast. Since they just received a new tome and that model stayed, I suspect it will stay for the duration of the book's lifespan.
I think the model will stay but not the sculpt in finecast. It's likely trapped in that hell of "designers haven't made a new one" and "we can't get rid of it but we will as soon as we can". It does make me hope someone whips the design team into filling in gaps not just doing "what they want". Because filling in gaps in terms of replacing finecast/metal in the rang is just what AoS needs. Some armies more than others (skaven need a massive release of new plastics - the bigget shame is a huge number were done but lumped onto a single elf and skaven sprue which meant no chance for individual release without GW making new expensive moulds)
Not really a "rumor", but attendees of the Open Day said that Beastclaw Raiders were stated to be in the upcoming Ogor book.
Is there any timeline on that book? I'm looking at building a BCR force for meeting engagements, and I'm not keen on buying the Battletome if its only going to be valid for a few weeks/months.
Beastclaws were shown with a new leader in a video which specifically mentioned the Tithe of bones. The new Death faction is set to be released in October so it would suggest that Ogors are going to get some new content around then. Considering that they've no battletome and releasing a new model on its own would be folly at this stage we can make the guess that from October we might see a new Battletome. I would estimate early November, but the latest December.
That would not just resolve and update Beastclaw Raiders and Gutbusters, but also mean that Destruction Grand Alliance was completed in terms of Tome support.
That would mean GW would hit Christmas with
1) All Destruction fully updated
2) All Death fully updated
3) All Order holding battletomes with only Seraphon and KO being out of date (not 2.0 ready)
4) Chaos being nearly battletome complete with Tzeentch in need of an update and only Slaves to Darkness/Everchosen being without a Tome.
I've heard rumour that Slaves to Darkness were set for a book this year, but that the delays from Sylvanath messed up the release order and Slaves has been pushed into next year. From a marketing point of view this sounds quite believable that GW would focus on getting all armies equipped with Tomes for the Christmas period when sales will peak; then only having to update 2 forces for Order going into 2020, which is fine because Seraphon and KO already have old Tomes and are quite well established. They wouldn't be expecting to lose models or change the lineup in a big way.
Slaves are the last outlier and I still think there's a small chance GW could push to get them released this year. Though considering how chock full their release windows already are (esp with Death and Sisters of Battle being two huge releases in tehir own right and all the specialist games), it might just be too much even at GW's current fast pace.
small correction for this comment, the new leader was an ogor leader, not beastclaw raider, there where no bcrs in the trailer.
Ahh sorry yes a new ogre not beastclaw - though honestly I'll be very shocked if its not a combined book when it comes. GW has given every indication of it being a joint book.
Valid points above, but I think there is a difference between things that come from WHFB and things from AOS. Beastclaw are from AOS, not holdovers from WHFB that initially/eventually got clipped. Here are the Ogre plastic kits: Grots (Displays WHFB box on site) Scraplauncher/Ironblaster Ogres Leadbelchers (Displays WHFB box on site) Ironguts (Displays WHFB box on site, but showcased in the Ogor Tyrant reveal) Aleguzzler Gargant Ogor Tyrant (new kit) And BCR kits: Thundertusk/Stonehorn Mournfang Pack
I would think the kits above (perhaps sans the WHFB variants should they disappear) would make a decent joined army. BCR adds cavalry/behemoth options to the gutbusters ground game.
mokoshkana wrote: Valid points above, but I think there is a difference between things that come from WHFB and things from AOS. Beastclaw are from AOS, not holdovers from WHFB that initially/eventually got clipped. Here are the Ogre plastic kits:
Grots (Displays WHFB box on site)
Scraplauncher/Ironblaster
Ogres
Leadbelchers (Displays WHFB box on site)
Ironguts (Displays WHFB box on site, but showcased in the Ogor Tyrant reveal)
Aleguzzler Gargant
Ogor Tyrant (new kit)
And BCR kits:
Thundertusk/Stonehorn
Mournfang Pack
I would think the kits above (perhaps sans the WHFB variants should they disappear) would make a decent joined army. BCR adds cavalry/behemoth options to the gutbusters ground game.
all the beastclaw raider kits came from the WHFB ogre kingdoms, they haven't gotten a single new kit in AoS
The only fully new armies for AoS are KO, Stormcast, Nighthaunt and Bonereapers. Almost all the others are either fully from the Old World or they are added to.
^Idoneth too. Also, I'd say Nighthaunt is more of an extension of the spirits from Vampire Counts (Wraiths, Spirit Hosts, etc...).
There isn't an awful lot of armies that are 100% AoS, but with time I suppose it will be the case. New armies appear to be their own thing and will probably end up replacing every trace of the Old World.
VBS wrote: ^Idoneth too. Also, I'd say Nighthaunt is more of an extension of the spirits from Vampire Counts (Wraiths, Spirit Hosts, etc...).
There isn't an awful lot of armies that are 100% AoS, but with time I suppose it will be the case. New armies appear to be their own thing and will probably end up replacing every trace of the Old World.
I don't think so at all. It would be a disaster for GW to retire more armies once they've got a 2.0 battletome. Wargames rely on a sense of longevity and whilst AoS is still transitioning into 2.0 GW can still remove some old stuff, but once that is done I think we will enter far more normal times where they update armies rather than remove them wholesale. Otherwise people will simply stop buying into it if they feel that their army is gone within 5 years. Just look at 40K, GW has only ever fully retired 1 army, Squats.
Now I can expect that some armies for AoS will get revolutionary new sculpts given time; that styles might change, but a 2.0 Battletome army should be "safe" for a decent length of time.
I'm not refering to the immediate future (ie. v2.0). But rather when all the new army concepts will start unfolding. Shadow/Light Elves, sky goblins, clown-skeletons and whatever else they have planned. There will be a time when most of the AoS line will be full of armies with the "exclusive AoS design" (out-of-the-box/over-the-top/He-Man). This will eventually lead to retire the more "classic" looking armies and models, as the range support can only be that large. This can be in 5 years, 10 years or who knows, but it is quite clear that the direction taken for AoS does not include general resculpting and updating minis on a cycle as they use to do for WHFB. Nor does it include giving the spot light to classic fantasy concepts.
And I wouldn't take 40k as an example. Financially it is on an other level. Business decisions are less radical. Just for fantasy you "recently" had Bretonnians, Tomb Kings and a progressive removal of many units (-> Free Cities). And not to mention oldies like Chaos Dwarves on life-support since 5th or stuff like Fimir.
Chaos Dwarfs's last official army list was in Ravening Hordes, released at the start of 6th edition WFB. Forgeworld did release some models for them later on, but they were gone from mainstream GW lineup for what, 20 years now? Fimirs even longer, they did not have any rules in 5th edition and up I think.
As for utilizing old kits, the best you can hope for is what happened to DoK- you take a handful of kits and release a lot of new ones to make the whole army fit into AoS.
Chaos dwarves had a FW list in Tamurkhan hardback book. It was gw-official and could be played at the warhammer world events. That was the last edition of whfb.
AoS is just not the game for people who want a more generic, historically inspired fantasy game. It is over the top and high magic, and I would not expect any of the stuff from the old game to last forever. Best to get what you want when you can and then find a game that has a style that you like.
2) being actually able to play said game since GW is in many cases the only game in town.
If one could play middle earth or kings of war or conquest like they can with 40k and in some places AOS, I think a lot of the angst we see in public forums would lessen.
mokoshkana wrote: Valid points above, but I think there is a difference between things that come from WHFB and things from AOS. Beastclaw are from AOS, not holdovers from WHFB that initially/eventually got clipped. Here are the Ogre plastic kits:
Grots (Displays WHFB box on site)
Scraplauncher/Ironblaster
Ogres
Leadbelchers (Displays WHFB box on site)
Ironguts (Displays WHFB box on site, but showcased in the Ogor Tyrant reveal)
Aleguzzler Gargant
Ogor Tyrant (new kit)
And BCR kits:
Thundertusk/Stonehorn
Mournfang Pack
I would think the kits above (perhaps sans the WHFB variants should they disappear) would make a decent joined army. BCR adds cavalry/behemoth options to the gutbusters ground game.
all the beastclaw raider kits came from the WHFB ogre kingdoms, they haven't gotten a single new kit in AoS
I guess I should hold off on getting two more BCR starters then.
Da Boss wrote: AoS is just not the game for people who want a more generic, historically inspired fantasy game. It is over the top and high magic, and I would not expect any of the stuff from the old game to last forever. Best to get what you want when you can and then find a game that has a style that you like.
ITs gonna be a badarse rpg too, C7 knows their stuff and the over the top and multipart kits will make for amazing characters...IMO
mokoshkana wrote: Valid points above, but I think there is a difference between things that come from WHFB and things from AOS. Beastclaw are from AOS, not holdovers from WHFB that initially/eventually got clipped. Here are the Ogre plastic kits:
Grots (Displays WHFB box on site)
Scraplauncher/Ironblaster
Ogres
Leadbelchers (Displays WHFB box on site)
Ironguts (Displays WHFB box on site, but showcased in the Ogor Tyrant reveal)
Aleguzzler Gargant
Ogor Tyrant (new kit)
And BCR kits:
Thundertusk/Stonehorn
Mournfang Pack
I would think the kits above (perhaps sans the WHFB variants should they disappear) would make a decent joined army. BCR adds cavalry/behemoth options to the gutbusters ground game.
all the beastclaw raider kits came from the WHFB ogre kingdoms, they haven't gotten a single new kit in AoS
I guess I should hold off on getting two more BCR starters then.
I managed to trade off two getting started BCR;s and an additional 2 mournfangs for 20 chainrasps and 10 reapers considering myself very lucky
Da Boss wrote: AoS is just not the game for people who want a more generic, historically inspired fantasy game. It is over the top and high magic, and I would not expect any of the stuff from the old game to last forever. Best to get what you want when you can and then find a game that has a style that you like.
ITs gonna be a badarse rpg too, C7 knows their stuff and the over the top and multipart kits will make for amazing characters...IMO
mokoshkana wrote: Valid points above, but I think there is a difference between things that come from WHFB and things from AOS. Beastclaw are from AOS, not holdovers from WHFB that initially/eventually got clipped. Here are the Ogre plastic kits:
Grots (Displays WHFB box on site)
Scraplauncher/Ironblaster
Ogres
Leadbelchers (Displays WHFB box on site)
Ironguts (Displays WHFB box on site, but showcased in the Ogor Tyrant reveal)
Aleguzzler Gargant
Ogor Tyrant (new kit)
And BCR kits:
Thundertusk/Stonehorn
Mournfang Pack
I would think the kits above (perhaps sans the WHFB variants should they disappear) would make a decent joined army. BCR adds cavalry/behemoth options to the gutbusters ground game.
all the beastclaw raider kits came from the WHFB ogre kingdoms, they haven't gotten a single new kit in AoS
I guess I should hold off on getting two more BCR starters then.
I managed to trade off two getting started BCR;s and an additional 2 mournfangs for 20 chainrasps and 10 reapers considering myself very lucky
Cool story bro? I mean, there isn't a confirmation that BCR is going away, so you could end up looking silly in the long run if they don't. I'm just saying I'm not going all in at the moment with potential unknowns.
Da Boss wrote: AoS is just not the game for people who want a more generic, historically inspired fantasy game. It is over the top and high magic, and I would not expect any of the stuff from the old game to last forever. Best to get what you want when you can and then find a game that has a style that you like.
ITs gonna be a badarse rpg too, C7 knows their stuff and the over the top and multipart kits will make for amazing characters...IMO
mokoshkana wrote: Valid points above, but I think there is a difference between things that come from WHFB and things from AOS. Beastclaw are from AOS, not holdovers from WHFB that initially/eventually got clipped. Here are the Ogre plastic kits:
Grots (Displays WHFB box on site)
Scraplauncher/Ironblaster
Ogres
Leadbelchers (Displays WHFB box on site)
Ironguts (Displays WHFB box on site, but showcased in the Ogor Tyrant reveal)
Aleguzzler Gargant
Ogor Tyrant (new kit)
And BCR kits:
Thundertusk/Stonehorn
Mournfang Pack
I would think the kits above (perhaps sans the WHFB variants should they disappear) would make a decent joined army. BCR adds cavalry/behemoth options to the gutbusters ground game.
all the beastclaw raider kits came from the WHFB ogre kingdoms, they haven't gotten a single new kit in AoS
I guess I should hold off on getting two more BCR starters then.
I managed to trade off two getting started BCR;s and an additional 2 mournfangs for 20 chainrasps and 10 reapers considering myself very lucky
Cool story bro? I mean, there isn't a confirmation that BCR is going away, so you could end up looking silly in the long run if they don't. I'm just saying I'm not going all in at the moment with potential unknowns.
I wanted to get rid of them due to model size and points costs, I only do skirmish and warcry and was looking for small odds and ends, 30 models is a good number more than i was hoping for
I don't think anyone should be worrying about the plastic BCR models going anywhere. They had a 1.0 tome and are plastic. They also fit with the aesthetic of a battletome we know that is coming.
I don't think any of the models that have been squatted have had all the above mentioned going for them. I'd rate it at a less than 1% that the BCR plastic models are not just rolled into the new Ogre tome.
Updated with links to the two Bonereaper articles as well as adding in the release confirmation for Free Cities and Orruks are confirmed today, both being before Bonereapers (which are confirmed as October).
I've updated the listing now with the release of the two new Battletomes. I've also added the rumour that Ogres will be released in 2019 and a link to the summary details on the "missing" greater demons on the forgeworld website.
Updated with the Feast of Bones release information. Also updated the battletome count. Including FW armies there's now 20 2.0 Battletomes and only 4 old tomes and 1 army without a tomb. Accepting that Everchosen (old) and Slaves to Darkness (never) get combined that only means 4 more battletomes for AoS to move fully to 2.0 for existing armies.
I don't think they'll take 4-6 months over those, more like 2-3 months if they stick to the rough 1 Tome a month pattern that they've had up till now (on average). Yes Seraphon and KO could easily have bigger releases with updated models for the Seraphon and new models for the KO, but at the same time GW can keep them functional with just a battletome.
Getting armies to 2.0 is more important right now than updating all the models. Getting armies to 2.0 means that they work in the game and will sell - just look how badly Slaves to Darkness are doing that their last year christmas boxed set was still on sale until now (GW have removed it, but its likely still in local stores and 3rd parties). For the "Big bad" army in the game they've had almost no support since the launch of AoS. That translates to really bad game performance and really bad sales.
Giving those armies 2.0 Tomes is the most important step
auticus wrote: Fancy that, no one wants to play a faction that looks awesome but couldn't fight off teletubbies, let alone anything else in the AOS game lol.
I think its time to turn turn the record to Side B now that we've got a confirmed Battletome coming out in less than 2 weeks time
auticus wrote: Fancy that, no one wants to play a faction that looks awesome but couldn't fight off teletubbies, let alone anything else in the AOS game lol.
I think its time to turn turn the record to Side B now that we've got a confirmed Battletome coming out in less than 2 weeks time
Well hold on now, we don't know if it will be any good. It could be a crap battletome, or it could be hugely OP.
auticus wrote: Fancy that, no one wants to play a faction that looks awesome but couldn't fight off teletubbies, let alone anything else in the AOS game lol.
I think its time to turn turn the record to Side B now that we've got a confirmed Battletome coming out in less than 2 weeks time
Just because they are getting a battletome does not mean they won't be flaming garbage.
A good chunk of the 2.0 books aren't viable against the top three or four books when those three or four books are running in powerplay mode. The pattern is alternating. Meaning a strong power book is followed by a mediocre for fun book. The last book was the masters of the universe undead book which is a power book right now. All signs point to slaves to darkness being a meh for fun book. Though the mawtribe book (a meh for fun book) might have been the for fun team's last effort, meaning slaves to darkness will be off the chains like slaanesh.
We just won't know until the book drops and we have our 12 second flip through of the rules trying to find the obvious busted pieces if they exist.
I know some of you guys feel that as long as its a 2.0 tome its viable, but I watch every week just how not true that is. Our AOS campaign that is wrapping up is about 8 players now, and we've gone through 14 players this year (since jan 2019) who started and quit for a different game because of the balance issues and almost all of them were using 2.0 tomes.
auticus wrote: Fancy that, no one wants to play a faction that looks awesome but couldn't fight off teletubbies, let alone anything else in the AOS game lol.
I think its time to turn turn the record to Side B now that we've got a confirmed Battletome coming out in less than 2 weeks time
Just because they are getting a battletome does not mean they won't be flaming garbage.
A good chunk of the 2.0 books aren't viable against the top three or four books when those three or four books are running in powerplay mode. The pattern is alternating. Meaning a strong power book is followed by a mediocre for fun book. The last book was the masters of the universe undead book which is a power book right now. All signs point to slaves to darkness being a meh for fun book. Though the mawtribe book (a meh for fun book) might have been the for fun team's last effort, meaning slaves to darkness will be off the chains like slaanesh.
We just won't know until the book drops and we have our 12 second flip through of the rules trying to find the obvious busted pieces if they exist.
I know some of you guys feel that as long as its a 2.0 tome its viable, but I watch every week just how not true that is. Our AOS campaign that is wrapping up is about 8 players now, and we've gone through 14 players this year (since jan 2019) who started and quit for a different game because of the balance issues and almost all of them were using 2.0 tomes.
Sure there is a difference in power between books, but I in no way feel its as bad as you make it out to be. With a couple of exceptions most 2.0 tomes can give each other good games.
Some of the stuff I seen people complaining about has been: Ghoul King on Terrorgheist was almost impossible to play against for a melee army before they nerfed it a bit, now FEC are "just" very strong. Slaanesh very much depend on what you play against them, can go from very good to OMG NERF ALREADY if they are a bad match for you. Also have to say I'm a little scared of the new Bonereapers, have not played them yet.
But where I mostly see problems is if the person with the weaker tome brings a fluffy list or if the person with the stronger list is also a better player. Most of the time you have good games even if one side has a advantage.
IMO Bonereapers are one part OP, one part horribly unfun game design, and one part brilliant tactical game design. It's a bipolar battletome where some parts are really well designed (relentless discipline, all the sub-factions save 1) while others seem like they were designed by someone who has no skill at wargame design (mortek crawler, bone-tithe nexus). I would not be surprised if the actual writer of the 'tome changed hands somewhere during the design process.
NinthMusketeer wrote: IMO Bonereapers are one part OP, one part horribly unfun game design, and one part brilliant tactical game design. It's a bipolar battletome where some parts are really well designed (relentless discipline, all the sub-factions save 1) while others seem like they were designed by someone who has no skill at wargame design (mortek crawler, bone-tithe nexus). I would not be surprised if the actual writer of the 'tome changed hands somewhere during the design process.
There's a meme on one of the Sigmar shitposting pages showing "Sam's Books" vs "Jervis Book". FEC, OBR and HoS on one side under Jervis book. BoC, Mawtribes and CoS under the Sam side, showing the positives and negatives of both styles of books.
Not that its true(could be), but there definitely seems to be two different design philosophies in one studio.
Sure there is a difference in power between books, but I in no way feel its as bad as you make it out to be. With a couple of exceptions most 2.0 tomes can give each other good games.
I would certainly challenge you to bring forth battle reports highlighting a "competitive" gitz, mawtribe, khorne, tzeentch, nurgle, orcs, or sylvaneth army taking on a competent player playing triple keeper of secrets, tournament powered FEC, or masters of the universe undead and it not being pretty much decided on the opening credits.
Yeah there are a number of 2.0 books that can give each other good games. And then there are the other half of the 2.0 books that don't bother showing up unless you are playing one of those set of books unless you are just there to mash models together and you don't give a damn about the outcome of the game.
It is weird how they design books. Always has been. And then they show only half-assed ways of playing when they show battle reports, so everything looks fine and then it's not.
Sure there is a difference in power between books, but I in no way feel its as bad as you make it out to be. With a couple of exceptions most 2.0 tomes can give each other good games.
I would certainly challenge you to bring forth battle reports highlighting a "competitive" gitz, mawtribe, khorne, tzeentch, nurgle, orcs, or sylvaneth army taking on a competent player playing triple keeper of secrets, tournament powered FEC, or masters of the universe undead and it not being pretty much decided on the opening credits.
Yeah there are a number of 2.0 books that can give each other good games. And then there are the other half of the 2.0 books that don't bother showing up unless you are playing one of those set of books unless you are just there to mash models together and you don't give a damn about the outcome of the game.
I play Khorne myself and while scary and I would not give myself 50% of winning against triple Keeper or FEC, I don't consider the game lost either. There are certain bad matchups, Mawtribes vs Slaanesh with the way depravity points works is just stupid.
The new Orruk Warclans books seems very able to compete, so not sure why you put it in there. I know some people who would put it in with Slaanesh and FEC. Instead of digging up battlereports there is this:
Thats top 5 for some of the AoS tournaments in october. Pretty sure they are all 5 games and I checked for a couple of the ones that don't mention number of players: 28, 30 and 56 so not tiny ones. Most of the armies you mention have several top 5 spots. Mawtribes was not out yet, but the rest have played 5 games in a event and made it to top 5, a couple only once, but most several times. Maybe they will have a very hard time against triple Keeper or FEC, but that hardly makes the armies impossible to play. Clearly some people do and win more than they lose.
Sure there is a difference in power between books, but I in no way feel its as bad as you make it out to be. With a couple of exceptions most 2.0 tomes can give each other good games.
I would certainly challenge you to bring forth battle reports highlighting a "competitive" gitz, mawtribe, khorne, tzeentch, nurgle, orcs, or sylvaneth army taking on a competent player playing triple keeper of secrets, tournament powered FEC, or masters of the universe undead and it not being pretty much decided on the opening credits.
Yeah there are a number of 2.0 books that can give each other good games. And then there are the other half of the 2.0 books that don't bother showing up unless you are playing one of those set of books unless you are just there to mash models together and you don't give a damn about the outcome of the game.
Sure there is a difference in power between books, but I in no way feel its as bad as you make it out to be. With a couple of exceptions most 2.0 tomes can give each other good games.
I would certainly challenge you to bring forth battle reports highlighting a "competitive" gitz, mawtribe, khorne, tzeentch, nurgle, orcs, or sylvaneth army taking on a competent player playing triple keeper of secrets, tournament powered FEC, or masters of the universe undead and it not being pretty much decided on the opening credits.
Yeah there are a number of 2.0 books that can give each other good games. And then there are the other half of the 2.0 books that don't bother showing up unless you are playing one of those set of books unless you are just there to mash models together and you don't give a damn about the outcome of the game.
I don't know if I would call that hard evidence. I have seen many cases of top lists getting outplayed by an inferior ones. Experience of each player, familiarity with their armies, dice rolls are all factors that play into the results. Does it prove it is possible to win not using a top tier list, sure. Anything more than that is open to heavy scrutiny.
EnTyme wrote: You must be new here. Tournament results are only relevant when they fit auticus' narrative.
Come on, show the man some respect. Yes, it does seem like he focuses on the negative and does exaggerate (not by much) the power discrepancies. But he is one of the most knowledgeable posters here in regards to balance.
I mean I guess its an american tradition to try and slander and discredit the person rather than debate the bullet points on the podium. The item being pointed to about me not knowing about StD (which I guess is EnTyme's way of saying because I made a mistake and didn't know something, therefore everything I say is misinformed and wrong) happened a while back so I don't remember the full context, but I remember it had something to do with me not having or being able to find a rule or misinterpreting a rule incorrectly. Because that can happen with anyone, and is one reason i stopped doing youtube video reports (because a rule would get played wrong which would generate 100 negative comments, I feel bad for the mini wargaming guys lol) I'm not going to go back and find it, but I remember it happening and I remember I was wrong in that instance and there's really nothing more that I can say about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Equinox wrote: I don't know if I would call that hard evidence. I have seen many cases of top lists getting outplayed by an inferior ones. Experience of each player, familiarity with their armies, dice rolls are all factors that play into the results. Does it prove it is possible to win not using a top tier list, sure. Anything more than that is open to heavy scrutiny.
That is true, but its evidence none the less, it at least has some type of objectionable data you can look at and analyze. A battle report shows bad play, for example. Rather then the typical "the last month 5 players won local tournaments, so that proves that that army is not that bad", which has zero context, or way to even look at why that army won, or who they played against, in a local tournament setting. (as an example)
speaking of STD some of their things look pretty good, but I suspect they will require STD allegiance. It would likely be OP if they got that no matter what if they were in a Khorne or Nurgle force for example.
auticus wrote: The item being pointed to about me not knowing about StD (which I guess is EnTyme's way of saying because I made a mistake and didn't know something, therefore everything I say is misinformed and wrong) happened a while back so I don't remember the full context, but I remember it had something to do with me not having or being able to find a rule or misinterpreting a rule incorrectly. Because that can happen with anyone, and is one reason i stopped doing youtube video reports (because a rule would get played wrong which would generate 100 negative comments, I feel bad for the mini wargaming guys lol) I'm not going to go back and find it, but I remember it happening and I remember I was wrong in that instance and there's really nothing more that I can say about it.
Everyone makes some mistakes for sure, but when your entire modus operandi is to complain about S2D in multiple posts/threads for years on end and you clearly were ignorant of something that was pretty big news for S2D when one of the first Chaos books was released, it raises some questions (as I pointed out in the thread in question). Even one of the dudes you have a rapport with was surprised at your lack of knowledge in that regard.
Like, marked S2D units being allowed in the 3 (at the time) chaos books opened up all sorts of new options and weapons for S2D players. Didn't raise the stocks on S2D for sure, but it was newsworthy. Newsworthy enough that someone who has such a hard on for harping about S2D would have been aware of if they actually played.
Kind of when I came to the conclusion that just complaining about AoS is some peoples hobby.
And to be fair, the mini wargaming guys had some truly egregious rules fiascos. Like fundamentally misreading rules and doubling down on it.
Nah its certainly not my hobby. I'm hoping 3.0 kills the double turn off and neuters the summoning madness. Those are the two things that prevent me from playing at all. The rest of my complaints I could probably deal with if those first two things were removed.
The S2D units issue was if I recall that I was mistaken that they could be battleline and I was surprised to find out that they could be, because I had been under the illusion that outside of the book were allies, not able to be battleline.
In fact now that whole conversation comes back to me, it was me not fully understanding how ALLIES in general worked, and my entire region played it the way I had described and was wrong about, to include a couple very hardcore tournament adepticon guys who were also wrong.
And as I recall there was also a very large facebook conversation on GW's AOS page about that very topic because a LOT of people were confused by how allies were supposed to work in the chaos universe so I don't really feel bad, it was a mistake, but I don't feel it was crystal clear how it was supposed to work.
I also recall a TGA thread on the same topic with several people being surprised that it worked that way as well.
EnTyme wrote: He also wasn't aware that Slaves to Darkness units could be included in god-specific armies even though each tome says so in clear terms.
auticus wrote: The item being pointed to about me not knowing about StD (which I guess is EnTyme's way of saying because I made a mistake and didn't know something, therefore everything I say is misinformed and wrong) happened a while back so I don't remember the full context, but I remember it had something to do with me not having or being able to find a rule or misinterpreting a rule incorrectly. Because that can happen with anyone, and is one reason i stopped doing youtube video reports (because a rule would get played wrong which would generate 100 negative comments, I feel bad for the mini wargaming guys lol) I'm not going to go back and find it, but I remember it happening and I remember I was wrong in that instance and there's really nothing more that I can say about it.
Everyone makes some mistakes for sure, but when your entire modus operandi is to complain about S2D in multiple posts/threads for years on end and you clearly were ignorant of something that was pretty big news for S2D when one of the first Chaos books was released, it raises some questions (as I pointed out in the thread in question). Even one of the dudes you have a rapport with was surprised at your lack of knowledge in that regard.
Like, marked S2D units being allowed in the 3 (at the time) chaos books opened up all sorts of new options and weapons for S2D players. Didn't raise the stocks on S2D for sure, but it was newsworthy. Newsworthy enough that someone who has such a hard on for harping about S2D would have been aware of if they actually played.
Kind of when I came to the conclusion that just complaining about AoS is some peoples hobby.
And to be fair, the mini wargaming guys had some truly egregious rules fiascos. Like fundamentally misreading rules and doubling down on it.
Thing is one example does not make a trend. If there were multiple instances of Auticus overlooking basic mechanics it would be one thing, but when it's just one over the course of years...
I mean, I was 26 when I finally realized that "Harly Quinn" is "Harlequin".
Meh, when you say multiple times since GHB1 that you are leaving the game and still post doom and gloom here on the regular, I'm skeptical.
When you say that Parablium or whatever is your new jam and you post more in this subforum than you do in the actual Parablium thread, I remain skeptical. Did that game turn out to be Runewars 2.0 and go tits up as fast as Runewars? Aren't you one of their hobby ambassadors or something as well? Why keep at it here when you found a new muse just a few subforums down?
You did the same when you said you were moving on to KoW when you pre-emptively complained about BoC summoning before the book even dropped. You are a prolific poster in the AoS subforum and since this site is one of my main posting sites, I pay attention to this stuff.
Like I said, if this is how you like to spend your time, more power to you. We can do this dance forever.
auticus wrote: The S2D units issue was if I recall that I was mistaken that they could be battleline and I was surprised to find out that they could be, because I had been under the illusion that outside of the book were allies, not able to be battleline.
In fact now that whole conversation comes back to me, it was me not fully understanding how ALLIES in general worked, and my entire region played it the way I had described and was wrong about, to include a couple very hardcore tournament adepticon guys who were also wrong.
And as I recall there was also a very large facebook conversation on GW's AOS page about that very topic because a LOT of people were confused by how allies were supposed to work in the chaos universe so I don't really feel bad, it was a mistake, but I don't feel it was crystal clear how it was supposed to work.
I also recall a TGA thread on the same topic with several people being surprised that it worked that way as well.
It happens.
It was definitely worded poorly in a few books, but it had been FAQ'd well before your post.
It certainly happens, just seemed weird that a dude so focused on complaining about AoS and his chosen army wouldn't have been abreast of that knowledge.
NinthMusketeer wrote: On one hand he can't engage in discussion over another game is there is no one to discuss with. On the topic of AoS there are people to discuss with.
Its a bit of a catch 22 though. If you don't attempt a discussion, no discussions happen.
Kind of why I try to do the book review/summaries in the background subsection, to foster discussion on the background of AoS. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I have been slacking though, hope to have a Beastgrave review/summary up this weekend! And the AoS Advent stuff.
And even you have called him out on his hyperbole at times. Like the Forbidden Power thread, where first he was complaining about Mercenary rules (lol) before they were even released (lol again, but also par the course), then moved onto Lauchon the Spooky Bus-man. I think we were all in agreement that it was powerful, but he went next level on the hyperbole("point and click"). He claimed that it was auto win and being used in 100% of the games he watched, you pressed him on how and with what he was seeing used with, he went radio silent. That doesn't raise any red flags for you?
Some folks have different tolerances for that nonsense. As we've seen play out in how many threads now?
He may well be, but dude has claimed to have quit so many times its hard to tell. No malice intended, as I said, if this is what he enjoys, get at it my dude.
I have my aos models boxed in storage. I played three games with the new slaanesh book this year practicing for campaign before as slaanesh since i had the models before i decided mudhole stomping my opponents by virtue of my book was not fun.
I ran our campaign without playing in it.
I have not bought a tome since slaanesh after having bought all of them and am not giving the g dubs my money on slaves to darkness book.
I have since played 12 games of 3rd kow and about 25 conquest games and became their version of a press ganger and have written up next years map campaign with conquest. Additionally their guys are interested in reviewing my work which is pretty cool considering i was once the #2 content creator under bottle on tga and have been doing content for years.
Im interested in whatever this old world project is if the rules arent a board game. I will play aos again the moment they both eliminate the double turn and strangle free summoning. If they never do then thats also fine, my weekends are filled otherwise.
I post here because on dakka the other forums have few posters and because im interested in participating in the old and new world but not under the current meta churn you have to do to have fun public campaigns with where bob the power builder cant show up with triple keepers and ruin the campaign because the rules say he can or i have to houserule it out and face the public lynching of my regions power players that hate comp.
So because i have like a $10,000 investment in my gw universe, i will continue to follow and post about its continued issues that ive seen drive more players away than retain.
Tldr: me quitting *playing* the board game known as aos does not mean the same thing as not posting in the topics that interest me.
auticus wrote: I ran our campaign without playing in it.
I want to highlight this, because it does change the context considerably. I knew you were running the campaigns, I did not realize you had ceased to even play in them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: And even you have called him out on his hyperbole at times.
I've also been called out on my hyperbole at times, I think it's something we humans are simply predisposed to.
I find that often if a person uses words in what we perceive as an exaggeration AND we disagree with them, we will “call them out on hyperbole” and then when our peers that we agree with do the same, we will be silent and conveniently pass on by.
I did not realize you had ceased to even play in them.
The slaanesh book was the last straw that broke me. Between the book, Ben Johnson smiling on twitter with his triple keeper of secrets, seeing summoning continue to be as ridiculous as it has been since they brought it back (as we fought against back on day 1), seeing the community dance around the bonfire about how awesome and 'fun' the book was, and watching my casual campaign get baby seal clubbed yet again... that was the last straw. At least until 3.0
I look forward to the new Slaves of Darkness stuff. I am planning on pre-ordering it (well tome, Start Collecting and Endless Spells) all for my brand new, first fantasy army.
At the same time, I do have some reservations since my first game was a train wreck in terms of anything approaching my force having a chance at victory. I played Bonereapers my first game. Since then, I looked at the Mortek Guard and compared them directly to Chaos Warriors. Unless I am missing something, the Mortek Guard generate head and shoulders more damage (thanks Nadirite and double unit number per point) than a similar amount of points of Chaos Warriors. And before someone steps in with the response that Mortek Guard are slower, they might want to note Chaos Warriors only have a Move 1" faster which ain't nothing, but I figure is more of fair trade in that Mortek Guard barely have to worry about Battleshock compared to Chaos Warriors.
What concerns me is that I don't see the Chaos Warriors warscroll changing much if anything in the new tome. I glanced at the Stormcast Eternal Liberator warscroll as they seem to be the Order counterpart and likely a good indication of what to expect. They pretty much share all the same stats as Chaos Warriors. Now my army is built on the bedrock of Chaos Warriors which seem like a fine choice to be a bedrock unit in terms of lore. I am also very likely to fight Bonereapers a lot as I know at least three people started them in the Escalation League that got me into AoS. I don't know how I am going to have much of a chance in these games even with a new Battletomb. I wanted an elite, aggressive army but feel hamstrung knowing that there is a faction that appears to do what I want better than what I thought would be the thing of mine.
I am almost sure that the new battletomb will offer a battalion or something to help my army out. However, I don't see how even new rules are going to allow my Warriors to even hold out long vs. an equal number of points of Guard. Maybe I am missing something. I am still very new to this game and pre-black powder war games if you don't count D&D. Others have tried to explain that Bonereapers have gaps in there army as weakness to exploit, but as a player that isn't planing on having a huge model collection for AoS, I can also claim that my army is going to have huge gaps in it. So that bring me little comfort as I don't see why a Slaves to Darkness army built mostly of Chaos Warriors and Chaos Knights should be inherently inferior by a noticeable amount to the Bonereaper equivalents. Seems like the kind of thing someone wanting to start of S2D army would want: Warriors/Knights. GW's Start Collecting seems to agree seeing the updated one kept those units in them. Maybe once Everchosen get rolled into Slaves to Darkness, I might be in a better spot since at the moment I can't ally any Everchosen (too expensive to be 25%) in my S2D army and I don't have enough Everchosen to ally S2D.
Right now, I feel like I am in a Sunk Cost Fallacy mindset in that I haven't been enjoying AoS (to the determent of all my miniatures gaming) yet I am putting more time and money into it in hopes it might get better. I don't like that feeling. For me, Age of Sigmar has until the end of this Escalation League I am in plus a few games with people in my Kill Team group that got me into the game before I may just shelve/sell the army. Not even playing Chaos Space Marines (using Marines as the Troop choices and fielding Terminators no less) for the last couple of years did that to me.
If you do any polynomial regression on the stats and points as I have done (and i used to have links to charts and the spreadsheets a few years back) the current slaves to darkness lineup generated nearly negligible offense at all. No mortal wounds. Very little rend. Very few volume of attacks.
You get your face rubbed in pooh.
The new book I am anticipating will bring it up to at least the gitz and khorne level, which will be a far improvement, though if thats all they get you will suffer in a tournament environment still.
The sunk cost fallacy i totally get (just follow my post trail and the back and forth that people who hate hearing the negative stuff have generated with me). A lot of why I stuck around so long was because of the gross amount of money and time I spent on my model collection over the past 20 years. It was hard to just not use them anymore.
The S2D will likely have one or two units that are your obvious takes. I love warriors and knights too but I wouldn't count on those being the obvious takes. At least not the knights. The warriors are good tanks, but thats it. But you might get lucky and they make knights not something that only generates lolz when you field them? Anything is possible, depending on which of their design teams wrote the book.
Right now, I feel like I am in a Sunk Cost Fallacy mindset in that I haven't been enjoying AoS (to the determent of all my miniatures gaming) yet I am putting more time and money into it in hopes it might get better.
YOu and I are one and the same. I finally snapped late in the summer and put my GW stuff in storage and am now in Conquest and Kings of War. I look in here in the hopes that GW will someday get their head out of their rear, but then am reminded that a lot of the GW fanverse loves what they put out despite the issues you and I are lamenting, so I'm not very hopeful any longer.
Your thoughts on Warriors and Knights is the same as mine. I can't shake the cynical part of my brain telling me that there are way too many old warrior and knight models out there to be hugely profitable if I believed that GW gives new models good rules. I really don't believe that, just a part of me wants it to be true so things make a little more sense to why. What I think is more the case is GW is ultra-conservative in changing established stats particularly in Fantasy/AoS it seems. I think the inertia of they have always been is going to keep warriors and knights from being the good units of the tome. I figure the actual good stuff will probably be some random Warcry cult that has a poorly thought out special rules that combos well somehow. I am sticking with Warriors and Knights because I think they look awesome, and I hear Black Sabbath/Dio/Iron Maiden looking at them. I just wanted them to play half as awesome as the look.
I agree on the toughness of warriors, so far my warriors have been tough as old boots. The bit of praise I got from my Bonereaper opponent was my warriors held out far longer than his previous game opponent's forces (flesh-eaters I think it was) did. We were both pretty new to AoS so we didn't have much to use a reference to know where everything lines up in the game though.
I don't even want super competitive rules. Just rules that don't make my army space marine scouts in a Lost Patrol or worse. I don't mine losing, but I also don't want to play every game just trying to narrow the margin of each loss with the understanding every game is going to be a loss but maybe, just maybe I only give my opponent a minor victory.
I would say that at the very least you will get a book that will make you have some kind of offensive output.
If its a for fun book like some of the books that are out, you will be kicked in the teeth by any power listing so that will be up to you to socially engineer with your opponent to ask him not to come in trying to kick your face in.
If you are lucky and it was written by the Ben Johnson team that seems to crank everything to 11, you'll be summoning 1000 points (or everytime a unit dies you'll just bring them back to the table or something) and doing dozens of mortal wounds every time you draw breath and point at something on the table.
StD's are currently saddled with a unit line up that does not have the tools needed to win games (mainly pitiful offense), coupled with an allegiance that is worse than the grand alliance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: I find that often if a person uses words in what we perceive as an exaggeration AND we disagree with them, we will “call them out on hyperbole” and then when our peers that we agree with do the same, we will be silent and conveniently pass on by.
Yeah, that's humans.
seeing summoning continue to be as ridiculous as it has been since they brought it back (as we fought against back on day 1), seeing the community dance around the bonfire about how awesome and 'fun' the book was
I half-disagree with these two points; while Slaanesh summoning is ridiculous it is not a continuation of previous levels of summoning, rather it is ridiculous in both extend and its matchup-dependence. No other army summoning varies so wildly based on what the opponent brought, and no other army summoning can pump out even close to the same amount of free units. On the second point, it depends on the community. It's been well established some are worse than others. In my local community even the Slaanesh players were immediately unhappy with the state of the summoning, while TBF to the battletome most of it IS pretty fun if the summoning is tossed out.
I'm optimistic for Slaves to Darkness. I personally hope they get plenty of helmet options to tinker with. And I hope they're compatible with the older models, because Chaos Knight Helmets > Warrior Helmets.
NinthMusketeer wrote: while TBF to the battletome most of it IS pretty fun if the summoning is tossed out.
Same view here. I love most of the new Slaves stuff, but depravity is a big negative element not just because of how swingy it is in the game (Skaven 1 wound rat army is going to generate way less than a stormcast army with almost all being multiwound). But also because it basically forces you into taking all leaders and summoning more. Units like fiends, which are expensive but not bad for their points; and even just larger groups of deamonettes or seekers are heavily discouraged. It really cuts down on viable and fun builds within the army all in the favour of "forcing" more keepers on us (hint GW - the Keeper models is great, we don't need summoning rules OP protection to make us buy them)
Well to me summoning has been the biggest thorn in that if your build cant keep up (meaning you are forced in your choices) the game is going to be very hard at best. Seraphon summoning was just as gross, and the FEC free point fiasco was a form of that as well. The nagash grave sites are not a fun experience if you aren't the nagash player. These all exist at some degree of annoying from not fun all the way to wholly toxic if you are not wanting to play tourney-hammer.
To your point about the community I also agree it depends on what community... when I say the community I'm referring to the general online community that I encounter here, or on facebook or through my twitter feed. On those platforms it seems that a good chunk of the majority were joining Ben Johnson in the triple keeper summoning being awesome and that that was awesome because summoning was awesome. There are a few fellows in my local community that monitor the same things and thats how those things pop up on our local tables.
"If Ben Johnson, the guy leading the development, is saying to do it, who are you to say I shouldn't?"
With summoning removed i agree that the book is fun. But thats the dig. The guys here that take slaanesh do it for the triple keeper summoning.
And remember my perspective and the majority of my time is spent in the public arena as an event organizer for narrative campaigns. All this can be solved by simply going away to my garage and retiring and then just shrugging my shoulders and saying "yeah the balance is gross but my group doesn't play like that so its not a problem", but private campaigns with 2 or 3 people does not engage me.
I play Khorne and Ogres and I have to agree that even as I had a smile in my face the whole game, the last tournament I attended (it was not my tipical FLGS tournament, but a bigger one, thank god), the third Slaanesh player in a row broke me on the inside.
I was playing Ogres and the second one didn't even summoned anything, for pitty. He tabled me at turn 4 with 1 keeper and a half remaining, but he had points to summon like 3 more or something like that.
And yeah Ogres are auto loss agaisnt slaanesh but is not like Khorne works better. I can't understand how he gains depravity by the wounds lost by his own models. I mean. When I kill 1 Keepr and a half he has enough points to summon another. WTF?
Indeed. Slaanesh will go down in the annals of GW broken hall of fame as one of the worst books for balance ever written. Right up there next to the 7th ed demon book and the 5th ed 40k grey knights.
The difference is the lead developer has a picture on the internet of him posing in front of his triple keepers with a smile on his face and thumbs up at a tournament.
The irony about summoning is that in 1.0 when it cost points it was doggak and nobody used it except in very very rare circumstances. Now that it's free, it's broken. Summoning is one of those things that can't properly be done. Either you have to pay, and it's terrible, or you don't and you get to add X points above.
Even armies that have decently balanced summoning like Nurgle and Khorne (although Khorne's is really nasty as it accumulates as units die meaning you can like summon a Bloodthrister towards the end of the game when your opponent has nothing that can deal with it) can be broken. I think the only answer there is to have summoning only recycle, not bring new. Which has its own slew of problems.
However, the commonality here is that ther's too much focus on tournament/competitive. Not everything has or should fit into the "can win a tournament" bucket. yes, there are groups like auticus' where the tournament players just switch FOTM armies and like to club baby seals but people like that should not be the focus of design. An army that's average power level has long inherently wrong with it even in a world where the broken armies exist. It only becomes a problem when everyone dismisses anything not the broken army.
I think you can make summoning work and be fun and not overbearing.
My solution was always if you summon over a certain threshold, use the sudden death victory conditions. Your opponent can no longer win a standard battle so he has to try for a desperation win.
Alternatively you only may summon in a warscroll from a certain list (mostly your core troops) and that its never 100% and your opponent should have the ability to try and block it.
The ability to bring in, literally, a whole second army with no risk or consequence - is flat out bad game design.
Automatically Appended Next Post: People weren't using summoning in 1.0 because it went against what summoning is supposed to be: a resource of free extra points.
If you have to pay points for summoning, it is no longer a resource of free extra points, and people aren't going to bother (as was demonstrated quite visibly)
The problem with points and summoning, if I recall right, is that you had to roll dice to summon. As soon as you have reserves (which is basically what that is) behind a random dice roll it becomes unattractive, esp at the large scale. Because now there's a high chance that a large portion of your army might not appear early enough in the game to work.
It's worse if the game design also moves toward stronger and stronger early strikes in the game because then you really do want as many points down on the table incase you get early tabled or your one summoner gets into combat or otherwise gets disabled.
So I can totally see why summoning ontop of existing points exists; though I do agree when you've armies that can summon way over hteir point values for the game that becomes broken.
I do wonder if when GW designs tehir current summoning if they don't play fluffy lists. So depravity - yeah it works fine when you've only 3 or so leaders and a bunch of regular models and you're hoping to summon a keeper but you didn't take one. At least in the testing phase - of course once its out there everyone wants 3 or 4 keepers and you're able to generate way more resources.
It's kind of like the white dwarf rules that came out a short while ago where they clearly weighted the army toward taking more troops and then went "Oh wait but troops don't make depravity so lets balance that up with a double depravity generator for leaders". The problem being that they were thinking of fluffy lists; whereas anyone building tactically would go "Oh hey I'll just take keepers and 6 leaders and keep most of them within that 12 inch bubble - and get DOUBLE the depravity generation".
To me either GW is nefarious or they are just way too casual in their rules designs. Sadly I don't think we'll see it change until we get new writers in influential positions with a new approach to writing rules.
Fingers crossed for the update next year (I think its out in January)
I do wonder if when GW designs tehir current summoning if they don't play fluffy lists.
I would say the answer to that is they do field broken lists because before the slaanesh book dropped, Ben Johnson had been tweeting three keeper boxes saying that this was going to be very useful in the upcoming book.
So he knew what it would do, which indicates that he was using that or seeing that in their internal ivory tower playtesting.
It's one of the great mysteries. We know Ben Johnson is an avid tournament player, and he's the AOS Lead (I think he's lead? He's on the team at any rate). So he has to be keen on what's broken/weak/etc. which would lend credence to the idea that it's deliberate to reward competitive players for finding the broken combos; The wrench in that idea is that the broken combos are often blatantly obvious to anyone with even the slightest idea of how the game is played, so there's no "mastery" involved in discovering them.
So it's either not realizing exactly how impactful they are (i.e. knowing it'll be "good" but not "broken OP") or knowing full well that it will bust the meta wide open and doing this on purpose for some reason which we don't get. Sure it helps the tournament/FOTM crowd but feths over everyone else so I can't imagine a real reason why they would deliberately do that. Especially since Ben Johnson seems like the type who can equally play a cutthroat tournament or a friendly narrative game, so he has nothing to gain by ruining one style of play to push the other when he does both.
Or it might not even be totally the team's fault, and they may just be on tight enough deadlines that they can't adjust as much as they'd like so have to push it out the door, or worse being told to not make it weaker to sell product (there's the anecdote from 7th? edition 40k where the Wraithknight was going to be made more expensive because it was super good and the designers were told to make it better but not more expensive so they could sell more. That happened under the previous regime but we have no evidence it doesn't still happen)
auticus wrote: The difference is the lead developer has a picture on the internet of him posing in front of his triple keepers with a smile on his face and thumbs up at a tournament.
He's also the dude who took a Squigalanche army, Stank Army, a Khorne Multi B-Thirster army to tournaments.
Perhaps dude just has a preference for small armies.
Also in this day and age of the internet its not as if power-combos remain secret. Once they are found they are very much talked about and spread about VERY fast.
Plus in the end wargames don't gel well with superpower lists. It's just not fun to spend hour upon hour building and painting an army only for:
a) The power list to beat you every time and no matter what you do if you go against it you will lose and that's 4 hours of life gone on the game
b) No one at the club will play you because you win every single time with that army (or at least have way more chance).
A much smoother power curve for well built lists is always more beneficial. The power players will still go for the most powerful, they just won't be "now I win and you've lost" on turn 1 affairs.
Honestly with depravity I do get the feeling that they were told to make it poewrful to sell leaders. Slaanesh had been doing so badly until then that there were more than a few rumours that GW was going to remove Slaanesh from the game entirely. Then GW released a new block of models which was mostly all leaders along with updated fiends. Plus a massive new Keeper (very expensive in both mould and model). That the best build is currently 4 of the most expensive newest model does really hint that GW wanted it that way to push sales and then seriously overplayed their hand.
Yeah but wargames still get infested (yes I'm specifically using that word) with superpower lists as people want to win and optimize and min/max everything. So you run into it regardless, even if it's not fun in the end.
auticus wrote: The difference is the lead developer has a picture on the internet of him posing in front of his triple keepers with a smile on his face and thumbs up at a tournament.
He's also the dude who took a Squigalanche army, Stank Army, a Khorne Multi B-Thirster army to tournaments.
Perhaps dude just has a preference for small armies.
That is neither here nor there in terms of he had obviously been playing 3 keepers in their playtesting and had to have seen firsthand the power it brought to the table and how unbalanced that could be. His personal preference doesn't matter. He had played the thing likely for weeks or months and knew very well how gross it was and it went out anyway.
Him liking small armies has nothing to do with the playtesting and seeing how obviously broken it was. I've followed him for a while, dude is not incompetent. Same as Bottle. They are both pretty sharp dudes and would have picked up on how busted these things were right away.
And I have a long history of saying this same thing: I believe its intentional. It is a company directive to include things that are obviously bent at that level somewhere to appeal to the people that love to play bent things. And then the community enforces that by saying "meh its not that bad, just don't play those people" and shovel money their way.
Since their objective is to stack millions, it is only natural that stuff like Slaanesh or summoning are totally intentional. Power creep and chase the new shinny tricks are effective from a business point of view, especially if you are the most visible face of a niche product that guarantees a certain amount of customer desperately trying to keep up with release pace.
Before, a Greater Daemon was a rare thing and very powerful. Now, make it common and even desirable along with a new model. Make people buy three of them for the price of a regular army. Keeper Magic!
People setting in for 2k armies? No problem, make them buy more models that will have no point cost in game. Their 2000 point army will now require to buy 3000 p. worth of models. Summoning is genius!
Anyway, that is my cynical take on the current state of AoS, listing two of the many issues the game has.
As someone who knows well GW once put: The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way [...] It’s become the promotions department of a toy company – things move on! Unfortunately, it makes AoS (and more broadly GW) quite uninteresting.
I think summoning costing any points at all will make it useless. Who wants to put aside points and risk them not getting onto the board?
I think the only viable solution would be recycled not add, and even that's not a good solution because it doesn't stop the outliers (if you bring 3 KoS you can summon another one when one dies, etc.). It's really just a bad mechanic overall. REplenishment is fine, but summoning a new unit is bad.
Summoning costing points is perfectly fine so long as the delivery becomes more certain.
There's already a lot of units that start the game in reserves and people don't mind it. Heck in 40K people can put whole space marine armies into reserves to deep-strike into the game.
Daughters of Khaine are more than happy to have Khinerai appear mid-game where they need them too. Summoning would just have to mechanically work along similar lines. It might even be that summoning could happen within the limits that regular placements can't operate - so summoning right into base to base contact etc...
AoS is actually happier than 40K with regard to this because ranged attacks are not on the whole as powerful. So you can't wipe your opponent off the table in the first turn thus nullifying summoning.
Yeah my gut instinct is people want summoning to be free points.
The point of summoning is to get a points advantage over your opponent.
That in and of itself may not be a horrible thing. It is when you can make it 4000 pts vs 2000 pts. Or 3000 pts vs 2000 pts.
There is a threshold you need to gun for and not cross that threshold.
Either that or every single faction in the game needs to have the same amount of summoning. If its going to be bonkers summoning to drive sales, then let every faction summon 2000 extra points in a game.
That way its not mule kick to the face if you aren't playing the biblical faction that gets those powers.
The way that 40k handles it's 'summoning' is a way I think it could work for AoS, if it were to go the route of costing points. Only, it needs to be much more reliable to actually get the summoning done.
In 40k, you set points aside (1500pts of models start in your army, out of 2000pt game size), perform the 'summoning' and it allows you to tailor your list to what the enemy has. Bring on some more melee murder monsters, or some weak objective grabbers or shooting or a big anvil unit to sit in front of the enemy. Whatever you may need for that match. In 40k, it's not reliable however. Your hero needs to not move, then you need to roll some dice and see what tier/pointcost of unit you can summon in.
That's just my two cents, if it were to go points-based. Model it after 40k's summoning, but make it reliable.
Summoning IS extremely reliable. More reliable than back when it did cost points; back then one needed to cast a spell to summon a unit. And despite what some may say people did indeed use it, even at tournaments because they were Schrodinger's points that could be tailored to the scenario at hand. What they didn't do was reserve more than a few hundred points, because summoning 'big stuff' often needed a 9+ to cast.
The ideal is to just make summoning balanced such that the cost is taken out of the benefit of allegiance, like Khorne. When Khorne summons it is specifically spending the same resource (blood tithe) that it uses to gain ability benefits. Most summoning isn't like that; it is just a free upgrade that most of the summoning armies do not even need. Slaanesh, FEC, Tzeentch, LoN, etc... All perform perfectly fine as armies even if they are given a blanket rule of no summoning period. (And before someone says it, saying something is worse than tourney winners just means it isn't the most OP thing out there, not that it is bad or even average.) Ideally I would like to see Tzeentch have to lose a fate dice every time it deploys a new unit, LoN lose the grave site they return a slain unit from, FEC either have their summon be general-only or actually baked into the cost of the summoner, and so on.
Completely agree with that one ninth.
Summoning is something that’s fairly difficult to balance.
It needs to have its perks but not destroy games.
A ton of players quit during the earlier stages just because of summoning alone as the army you faced grew at a faster rate than you could kill it.
Then it flipped into reserve points and people hated that too as you weren’t essentially gaining anything other than a more flexible list to a degree.
As long as they can implement something like you suggest then it will go a long way to improving the game.
Really don’t miss the original AoS matches where the enemy army doubles each turn or tzeentch lists just throw endless bolts.
Still though, I think it’s in a decent place right now.
While it certainly can be improved, it’s by no means bad.
I honestly prefer it over WHFB in its current state too.
Hero hammer got tiring quickly.
More so when 80% of players ran a HE army with telclis and banner of the world dragon in a blob.
auticus wrote: I would say overall AOS took the concept of hero hammer and amped it to god level.
Hero’s are strong in AoS, but there is a lot more ways of dealing with them due to having plenty of abilities that let you target specific things.
Before, a hero would hide in a huge blob, buff it into a blender and you literally had to just avoid them all game.
At least in AoS you can pick off these hero’s and the buffs are far less severe.
The only hero I avoid on the table tends to be Gotrek as he just eats damage but is insanely slow.
Thats good to hear. I'm glad. If they could make double turn an optional thing or get rid of it and nerf down summoning, I'd be all on board with the new changes!
auticus wrote: I would say overall AOS took the concept of hero hammer and amped it to god level.
AoS heroes aren't really stronger than kitted out 5th edition heroes. It's 6th ed that removed the "fantasy" part of Warhammer Fantasy and turned into a historical game with limp-wristed "heroes" whose main reason was to buff LD or be a dispel scroll caddy. I know it's a controversial statement, but to me 6th ed is where Warhammer lost it's way and it culminated in the 50+ blocks of steadfast nonsense in 8th edition.
I see AOS heroes on the same level as 5th ed heroes or in the same neighborhood thereabouts.
6th ed whfb was my favorite because it put the "war" back in "warhammer" instead of it being a glorified D&D game.
5th ed was D&D with warhammer models. It was your heroes fighting each other being cheerled by a handful of escort models. That was a *massive* disappointment for me because I got sucked into buying into the game by the pictures of ARMIES clashing. The reality was that warhammer then was heroes clashing.
AOS I see as similar in many ways.
6th ed made the game about armies clashing instead of being about heroes clashing with their bodyguard. Which is why 6th ed is my favorite of all the warhammers, because I'm after armies clashing. And I remember tthe online flame wars about that change very clearly still, with a lot of people wanting the D&D version of warhammer because they didn't want to have to buy normal models (same arguments in 2000 as today)
Steadfast I think was a great idea... implemented horribly. In 7th ed the mechanics of the game favored MSU cavalry. So all of the games I was involved in, which included the top level GT games on down, were checkerboarded 5 model cav units everywhere doing "the dance" (fixed charge range, trying to see who toed over the line first to get charged)
Steadfast fixed that by making it so that infantry blocks couldn't just get shredded by tiny cav units. However, it had no cap and made the gamer public, extremists as they are, start fielding mega blobs of 100 or 200 models (which I hated).
Steadfast being cancelled by flanking or rear charge houserule made that part of the game to me perfect.
I do understand where you're coming from, but if the alleged "hero" selection is only barely more effective than a unit sargeant at chopping down people, he's not a hero, he's a commander. I expect a fantasy game to have certain fantastical tropes, such as heroic characters doing heroic deeds, monsters that feel suitably monstrous, and magic that is something beyond "sharp sword +1". 6ed had the magic part down fairly well, but monsters were universally inferior mounts to just sitting on a horse due to artillery sniping, and heroes were anything but heroic. It was very clear that edition was written by someone who really wanted to write historical games, but GW was hiring.
AoS gets the balance better than WFB in this regard- most heroes are within 100-200pts range, and offer roughly the same hitting power as a unit of that cost, or heroic abilities that provide utility
Probably. Though honestly I don't see that thread going beyond a couple replies so the side track can probably die here lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote: I do understand where you're coming from, but if the alleged "hero" selection is only barely more effective than a unit sargeant at chopping down people, he's not a hero, he's a commander. I expect a fantasy game to have certain fantastical tropes, such as heroic characters doing heroic deeds, monsters that feel suitably monstrous, and magic that is something beyond "sharp sword +1". 6ed had the magic part down fairly well, but monsters were universally inferior mounts to just sitting on a horse due to artillery sniping, and heroes were anything but heroic. It was very clear that edition was written by someone who really wanted to write historical games, but GW was hiring.
AoS gets the balance better than WFB in this regard- most heroes are within 100-200pts range, and offer roughly the same hitting power as a unit of that cost, or heroic abilities that provide utility
Someone made a really really good comparison to what AOS is that I can't remember the exact name, but there is a video game where you have armies clashing, and you play the role of one of the heroes, and that hero basically wades into the enemy armies by himself and destroys 3/4 or so of the army on his own. That was a level of fantasy that that player preferred, and a lot of players prefer, and the comparison to that video game was 100% spot on.
There will always be a contentiion with the folks like me that want to command fantasy armies that have to operate as armies, and folks that want fantasy armies led by heroic legends that can take most of the army on by themselves. Neither of course is wrong, but both are different games entirely
As a matter of fact: this conversation was had in a discord yesterday for Conquest where a player was complaining that the heroes weren't powerful enough because Conquest is an army style game where the heroes buff and help but are not the center point, and they wanted the heroes destroying enemy armies by themselves.
To AoS's credit, I really like where the game has gone from past iterations. I started on 40K and played some WHFB, but I believe AoS is a demonstrably better game than both. They axed a tremendous amount of convoluted tripe that was there for the common design mistake that complexity = deeper strategy. It's a simpler game than 40K which is a thumbs up in my book. The minis are absolutely the most beautiful out of anything that GW has made in the past or any other wargames on the market. And they reduced the required model count to something closer to 40K. I think AoS is on the right track and I'm loving diving into it. But GW balance is a peeve topic for me so I am going to rant a little.
I have always slightly resented how unbalanced and broken the games are in any edition. That resentment is due to how it is handled in the FLGS scene. GW does it's best(?) to appease both camps, by including narrative play and matched play. But I am a miniature painter first and a player second, and I prefer fluff builds and the stories that are developed in play.
I think GW supporting such a huge range of minis and factions in publication for what is still a relatively niche hobby with a small development team is a sisyphean task. The only way they'd be able to really get their hands on making the game anything close to balanced is if they greatly reduced their scope and cut down warscroll abilities even further. But we know that will make a lot of players riot. Perhaps balance would not be such a big issue if competitive play wasn't also a big issue. I live an hour-long drive from my closest FLGS, and after trying to get a casual circle of players for several years, I have learned that the only reliable way to find players is to sign up for an organized event. That means if I want to get in any games, that means a ladder, which means a tournament, which means anemic time limits to work through a complicated game, event worksheets, judges, coming up with 2K points of an army, and getting crushed by tryhards bringing meta cheddar lists with doodoo krylon paintjobs.
I can understand GW's unspoken support for this scene because it undoubtedly drives a lot of sales, but it means that narrative play or fluff builds or anything resembling beer-and-pretzels wargaming is out of the picture in a lot of places just because of availability of time, players and space. Where it approaches galling is when GW is confronted about the rampant cheese, cheating, imbalance, power creep and huge model count necessary to play in most FLGS communities, they hand-wave through it and say that Warhammer is a narrative game first and was never designed for competitive play. And they would be right - any game that requires player honesty is not fit to be taken seriously for competitive play. We all know that every FLGS wargaming scene has a "that guy" who doesn't use good distance measure discipline, but there's not enough judges literally anywhere to call over and run out the clock every time "that guy" gives himself an extra 0.5" for every move, run, shoot and charge. But still we have tournaments, trophies and cash prizes, which incentivise dishonest play. And that's not going to change because GW is a publicly traded company and competitive scenes at local shops are what drive a tremendous amount of sales.
auticus wrote: Probably. Though honestly I don't see that thread going beyond a couple replies so the side track can probably die here lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote: I do understand where you're coming from, but if the alleged "hero" selection is only barely more effective than a unit sargeant at chopping down people, he's not a hero, he's a commander. I expect a fantasy game to have certain fantastical tropes, such as heroic characters doing heroic deeds, monsters that feel suitably monstrous, and magic that is something beyond "sharp sword +1". 6ed had the magic part down fairly well, but monsters were universally inferior mounts to just sitting on a horse due to artillery sniping, and heroes were anything but heroic. It was very clear that edition was written by someone who really wanted to write historical games, but GW was hiring.
AoS gets the balance better than WFB in this regard- most heroes are within 100-200pts range, and offer roughly the same hitting power as a unit of that cost, or heroic abilities that provide utility
Someone made a really really good comparison to what AOS is that I can't remember the exact name, but there is a video game where you have armies clashing, and you play the role of one of the heroes, and that hero basically wades into the enemy armies by himself and destroys 3/4 or so of the army on his own. That was a level of fantasy that that player preferred, and a lot of players prefer, and the comparison to that video game was 100% spot on.
There will always be a contentiion with the folks like me that want to command fantasy armies that have to operate as armies, and folks that want fantasy armies led by heroic legends that can take most of the army on by themselves. Neither of course is wrong, but both are different games entirely
As a matter of fact: this conversation was had in a discord yesterday for Conquest where a player was complaining that the heroes weren't powerful enough because Conquest is an army style game where the heroes buff and help but are not the center point, and they wanted the heroes destroying enemy armies by themselves.
You/they are probably thinking of KOEI's Dynasty Warriors (or Samurai Warriors, or the other variants). Which is exactly that; the PC hero just goes and blows through hundreds of enemies to fight other heroes.
I mean I like a bit of both. I like armies to be armies, but even ancient armies were often settled by what were basically duels between commanders. So having awesome heroes isn't a bad thing, it just can't be so far skewed that you don't need the army. In a fantasy setting you have some expectation of your mighty heroes on the battlefield facing impossible odds (who doesn't want to have say Hercules take on 50 guys?), but not when it turns into only heroes facing each other. IMHO you can't treat a fantasy game, even a rank and file one, like a historical medieval game where your commanders are often just directing in the back. That's alright for historical but not fun for fantasy. On the flip side though you can't make heroes so powerful that you don't need an army because your badass hero on dragon can destroy an army on his own.
Updated the opening post with current details and status of the game.
I've also added info about game expansions and side games to the list, please do feel free to mention if I've left something important out that's worth mentioning in those tabs.
Dear lord Ossiarchs are bonkers, Katakros is hilarious. I’m not really sure what they were thinking. I feel bad coz my brother who got them just wants a fun time playing but no one can actually fight him without saying GG first turn.
Then they are playing as gw intended and they should either git gud and buy a better army or concede that theyll get flattened until their chosen army gets to be over the top bonkers.
But hey if its all about drinking beer and slinging dice then none of that should matter anyway!
Main thing against bonereapers is making sure you have abilities that can remove selected models.
They are still insanely sturdy, but losing the hekatos hurts them a lot.
The other key point is mobility.
You need to be able to move around and pick off certain units early on.
In a large blob army you don’t want force multipliers being left alive, so characters and harvesters have to go and quickly.
My chaos dwarves struggle with them quite a bit.
I have to commit to taking out any catapults early on.
Bull centaurs tend to make short work of most things though.
My clan moulder army was made purely for fun and theme anyway.
They quite literally bounce off them (as they do with most other armies)
My grey water fastness army does just fine though (pure dwarf)
Gyros gun through large mobs while being pinned in place.
Gotrek is there purely for killing harvesters, large mobs and characters as he really doesn’t care what it is, it will die.
I play Free Peoples, Gitz and Sylvaneth. And my mate plays Maggotkin and Skaven and neither of us have managed to beat the Bonereapers yet. We mainly play for fun and narrative so it’s alright for the most part, though it does hurt the narrative slightly when it’s all just Bonereapers winning forever haha. It’s most likely the units we use, I only use 1 unit of Greatswords and Gryph Knights and my friend uses a pretty random selection of Skaven units.
Just a shame that Ossiarchs seem a little on the nuts side. Are they as insane for other peeps, or is it just our meta?
They are nuts with:
1. Lots of Mortek Guard
2. Harvesters near the Guard
3. Petrifax Elite
If they're doing all 3 of those, no casual list stands a chance to be honest. If they aren't doing any of those things then Bonereapers really aren't that scary.
If it becomes a serious issue for the group, I'd consider asking the Bonereaper player if it would be ok to play against them not running Petrifax Elite some time, just for fun.
Honestly Petrifax is what makes Ossiarchs broken - a flat +1 to all saves on models that already have good saves is very powerful. It's a bit of a pain too because Petrifax just overwhelmingly overpowers the other themed armies which are all fun in their own way.
I'd agree if it gets to be an issue just encourage them to use one of hte other fun themes like Crematorian - undead firebomb army!
Absolutely. Its definitely where I would target nerfs.
Maybe instead: once per unit, per phase - ignore a failed save roll. Something like that would still be decent (very good on leaders), but not be so oppressive to play against!
I would go even smaller; replace +1 to saves with re-roll save rolls of 1. Still useful, and it is redundant for mortek guard so providing some incentive to run the bigger stuff that Petrifax do in the fluff.
Even with no save buff at all Petrifax would be taken to gain access to a superb command ability, decent command trait, and an awesome artifact. The tradition is forcing a player to take less potent but more fluffy traits/artifacts in exchange for a benefit that can be built for. Petrifax gives a fantastic artifact that people would be taking even were it generic, the command trait stacking with said artifact is a potent combination, then the command ability & save buff are good for any army. One could build an Ossiarch army meant to utilize any of the other sub-factions, and said army would still be better in Petrifax.
It also nicely moves it into line with the others. Right now a blanket +1 save is just so much better it makes it almost a brainless choice to make over the others; which is a shame as it competitively shuts down other options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also updated the master post with the new info on the two new battletomes. This means just ONE MORE tome needs to be announced for release and ALL of AoS will be running 2.0.
Seraphon appear to be heralding the completion with a ROAR!
I haven't had any problems with them yet, and i have seen Mawtribes just eat them up as well. I'll try to get a few more games vs them before i make final judgement, but honestly i don't see them as a problem so far.
Is the save and minor healing really that big of a problem for many people?
Kanluwen wrote: Idoneth aren't running a 2.0 book. Nor are Maggotkin or Daughters.
Yes they are - they were the first of the new breed of Battletomes and are fully 2.0 compliant. The only thing they "lack" is terrain and endless spells (which Urruks and Cities of Sigmar also lack). GW doesn't need to make a whole new battletome for them to get either of those additions. Heck Daughters have been one of the strongest armies of 2.0 for a fairly long while.
There's more to it than simply "they lack terrain and endless spells". There was a very big design shift with 2.0 that we kinda/sorta saw with the preceding books, but if you don't have it then it's problematic.
And let's be clear here: Daughters aren't "one of the strongest armies of 2.0". They've had builds that were strong, mainly centered around Khinerai or Melusai.
It's like saying "Idoneth is a strong book!" while ignoring that it's the Eel spam that is strong.
Also: Cities might lack Endless Spells or scenery, but they do get benefits to Endless Spells.
Daughters builds were scented around Witch aelves and buffing them. Melusai based armies were also pretty strong, but it was Hag Nar armies with witch aelves backed up with lots of queens that was, and still is, one of the stronger powerbases.
Khinerai are freaking cool models but were never a power-play part of the force in the same way. Not weak, just not the somewhat broken/op level of power that witch aelves have/had. I think that the point cost adjustments have lowered their overall power, but didn't really disable it.
Regardless strength wasn't really a measure of 2.0 features. I agree there were some shifts in writing style and abiltiies that appeared steadily as the 2.0 battletomes evolved; however some of them have been errata'ed into the earlier books over time. Regardless those books are still very much 2.0 battletomes. They are VASTLY different to the earlier 1.0 and 1.5 Tomes that GW released (heck the 1.0 were just warscrolls and pretty much nothing else for rules).
Of course those earlier armies might see upgrade books or a second wave release of models; but overall they are still running modern and up to date rules for the 2.0 system. The only army that isn't now (or isn't soon now that we've two new announced books) is Seraphon.
Amishprn86 wrote: I haven't had any problems with them yet, and i have seen Mawtribes just eat them up as well. I'll try to get a few more games vs them before i make final judgement, but honestly i don't see them as a problem so far.
Is the save and minor healing really that big of a problem for many people?
You probably haven't been playing against a properly run Ossiarch army. Ossiarchs are one of those factions where if the controller does not know what he's doing they become very bad very quickly.
He doesn’t play Petrafex, but he has Katakros who does the same thing and gives them all +1 to hit and takes away your CP on a 4+ and his aura is huge and is 300pts less than Archaon. But he’s such a badass model that it seems such a shame for him not to use him.
While petrefex is a pain to fight, I’d still rather fight them than go up against a full crematorium spam army.
Arkhan, a couple of characters, pair of harvesters and blocks of guards become an issue very quickly when you are taking endless mortal wounds that you can’t avoid getting hit by.
These lists really are typical 1 trick ponies though.
One thing I’ve not really looked into though is ironjawz.
Been tinkering with the idea for a while now.
Been mainly looking at cantering a list around Gordrakk but never any more than that.
On paper he looks pretty good, but just wondering if anyone runs him for some proper info if possible.
Amishprn86 wrote: I haven't had any problems with them yet, and i have seen Mawtribes just eat them up as well. I'll try to get a few more games vs them before i make final judgement, but honestly i don't see them as a problem so far.
Is the save and minor healing really that big of a problem for many people?
You probably haven't been playing against a properly run Ossiarch army. Ossiarchs are one of those factions where if the controller does not know what he's doing they become very bad very quickly.
Nah, he knows how to play it, thats not a problem. We are playing a lot lately to practice for Adepticon, hoping to go 3 wins this year (2 wins last year) and we have 2 teams helping each other, so when someone makes a mistake we call them out on it.
From what I can see Ossiarchs can be broken if you can either stall them or work out their game plan and break it. Whilst they have some faster units and some speed-up abiltiies; by and large they are slow moving. If you can get ahead and stay ahead with objectives you can beat them that way; or if you can tarpit them even a single turn not moving is a pain for them.
That and learning things like avoiding Mortek and going for the Harvesters can also be a huge thorn in their side.
Taking down the Harvesters is crucial against a somewhat optimised Bonereapers list. Some armies can do that fairly easily, but others (with no or limited reliable shooting) are going to have a really bad time.
Amishprn86 wrote: I haven't had any problems with them yet, and i have seen Mawtribes just eat them up as well. I'll try to get a few more games vs them before i make final judgement, but honestly i don't see them as a problem so far.
Is the save and minor healing really that big of a problem for many people?
If you saw the game MWG posted, I wouldn't go by that. The Bonereaper player just crammed two starter-boxes together, and literally took the worst options in the book. :-p
Amishprn86 wrote: I haven't had any problems with them yet, and i have seen Mawtribes just eat them up as well. I'll try to get a few more games vs them before i make final judgement, but honestly i don't see them as a problem so far.
Is the save and minor healing really that big of a problem for many people?
If you saw the game MWG posted, I wouldn't go by that. The Bonereaper player just crammed two starter-boxes together, and literally took the worst options in the book. :-p
No, i mean in real life, i haven't watched any Batreps on them yet.
Amishprn86 wrote: I haven't had any problems with them yet, and i have seen Mawtribes just eat them up as well. I'll try to get a few more games vs them before i make final judgement, but honestly i don't see them as a problem so far.
Is the save and minor healing really that big of a problem for many people?
If you saw the game MWG posted, I wouldn't go by that. The Bonereaper player just crammed two starter-boxes together, and literally took the worst options in the book. :-p
No, i mean in real life, i haven't watched any Batreps on them yet.
I wouldn’t call it minor healing. Maybe it’s just our meta, but bringing back 3 models for 4 units a turn with Katakros and the Bone shaper, and bringing back other models when they’re destroyed on a 4+ from the harvester means the dmg you struggle to do vs their 3+ re-rollable save and 6+ shrug, is typically negated quite ruthlessly.
Well, im used to other factions healing where 2-3 is minor compare to 9-30 lol.
Its small enough that if you kill 15 out of a 20block you you can deal with it next turn without trying, sometimes you leave 1 FeC or skeleton, or something else alive and now its back up to 20 with CP, spells, abilities, etc..
Yeah they have a 3+/6+++, even if it is re-roll, -2 to their save (I treat re-roll as a 2nd save in my head for easy math even tho its worst b.c they don't always get to have a full re-roll due to not re-rolling modifiers) is 5+/5+/6+++ thats equal to many other death units that are 5+/5+++/6+++ (or 5+/6+++/6+++, or even 5+ ignore -1rend, 6+++/6+++) but they are 1/2 the cost or heals twice as much and sometimes are doing both.
So for me the numbers ends up being the same other than they have less models on the table.
The difference is that those basic skeletons dont have a rerollable 3+ save. You're having to fight bitterly for every single wound. So 1 returned is worth a heck of a lot more.
Stux wrote: The difference is that those basic skeletons dont have a rerollable 3+ save. You're having to fight bitterly for every single wound. So 1 returned is worth a heck of a lot more.
B.c almost 90% the time its -2 to saves sometimes -3 if i can get a spell off, but a lot of the times 1 of them is a modifier (you can not re-roll mods) so its a 5+ that cant re-roll any 3, making it 5+/5+ then a 6+++ and its not always skeletons, many death units (Nighthaunt for example) are 2 saves but 4+ then a 6+++ is almost equal to w 5+ saves and a 6+
But again then you have the ability to bring back 2x or 3x the amount at times.
Stux wrote: The difference is that those basic skeletons dont have a rerollable 3+ save. You're having to fight bitterly for every single wound. So 1 returned is worth a heck of a lot more.
B.c almost 90% the time its -2 to saves sometimes -3 if i can get a spell off, but a lot of the times 1 of them is a modifier (you can not re-roll mods) so its a 5+ that cant re-roll any 3, making it 5+/5+ then a 6+++ and its not always skeletons, many death units (Nighthaunt for example) are 2 saves but 4+ then a 6+++ is almost equal to w 5+ saves and a 6+
But again then you have the ability to bring back 2x or 3x the amount at times.
What army do you use? My armies don’t get nearly that much rend on anything but 1-2 units.
Stux wrote: The difference is that those basic skeletons dont have a rerollable 3+ save. You're having to fight bitterly for every single wound. So 1 returned is worth a heck of a lot more.
B.c almost 90% the time its -2 to saves sometimes -3 if i can get a spell off, but a lot of the times 1 of them is a modifier (you can not re-roll mods) so its a 5+ that cant re-roll any 3, making it 5+/5+ then a 6+++ and its not always skeletons, many death units (Nighthaunt for example) are 2 saves but 4+ then a 6+++ is almost equal to w 5+ saves and a 6+
But again then you have the ability to bring back 2x or 3x the amount at times.
What army are you using that has this endless supply of -2 or better rend?
Generally it’s hero’s and monsters only, so short supply that can be killed off.
I play SoC and BoC, but my BoC has almost every unit i play with -1 or -2 and ways to give out -1 or even -2 (or -3).
For my BoC i play with 2 shamans, 2-3 Doombulls, or 1-2 DB and 1 BL, 50+ bestigors, and some Bullgors (I stopped playing EToD unless it is a tournament, then i use them over Bullgors). Then i have 2 ways to give out -1, most the time its always -2 at least. I love Doombulls and i can safety say theya re worth playing multiples now, having 1 with +2D and other other with extra rend helps too.
The Doombulls/Bullgors are is -2/3D, my relic i have to take is an addition -1/-2/-3 rend (addition -1 rend for every 10 models in a unit to a max of 3) so 1 of my Doombulls will be -3/-4 rend for 3D, the other DB is -2/5D, if both gets to swing its over for almost any horded base unit. Bestigors are -1 but i try to get the spell or stone onto something for an additional -1. , i try not to hit to hard until turn 2 and i am a 1 drop so i set it up for double turns, if i get it im golded, if not i still am good b.c i can move 12-15" and still charge.
My other army (that i'm taking to adepticon) is SoC, their rend is only -1, but it doesnt matter as its 15 Scourgerunner chariots, 40 Shadow Warriors, and 2 Hurricanum's. The 2 Hurricanum's are 3D3 MWs on a 2+, the chariots at least 2/3 of them will gain a +1 to hit buff, they all have 1 that also is a +1 to hit, and at least 3 units will be +1 to wound, they are -1 for D3, and 6's are instead D3 MW's. Its normally 10 D3 MW's if you cant kill any of the chariots or wound the 2 Hurricanum's on top of the 6 unsaved wounds vs them (ends up being a hard average 26 wounds to a unit of M Guard after all saves) and that is before the 2nd shooting profile and before the Shadow warriors. To be fair that list will be nerf and chariots will be 80/210 for 3 in the GH2020, the local IDK, OBR, Mawtribes, Orruks, wont play against it without me letting them tailor their lists. But i normally try to kill off important units first, as the chariots move very fast in TE and i can spend CP to move farther and still shoot.
Amishprn86 wrote: I play SoC and BoC, but my BoC has almost every unit i play with -1 or -2 and ways to give out -1 or even -2 (or -3).
For my BoC i play with 2 shamans, 2-3 Doombulls, or 1-2 DB and 1 BL, 50+ bestigors, and some Bullgors (I stopped playing EToD unless it is a tournament, then i use them over Bullgors). Then i have 2 ways to give out -1, most the time its always -2 at least. I love Doombulls and i can safety say theya re worth playing multiples now, having 1 with +2D and other other with extra rend helps too.
The Doombulls/Bullgors are is -2/3D, my relic i have to take is an addition -1/-2/-3 rend (addition -1 rend for every 10 models in a unit to a max of 3) so 1 of my Doombulls will be -3/-4 rend for 3D, the other DB is -2/5D, if both gets to swing its over for almost any horded base unit. Bestigors are -1 but i try to get the spell or stone onto something for an additional -1. , i try not to hit to hard until turn 2 and i am a 1 drop so i set it up for double turns, if i get it im golded, if not i still am good b.c i can move 12-15" and still charge.
My other army (that i'm taking to adepticon) is SoC, their rend is only -1, but it doesnt matter as its 15 Scourgerunner chariots, 40 Shadow Warriors, and 2 Hurricanum's. The 2 Hurricanum's are 3D3 MWs on a 2+, the chariots at least 2/3 of them will gain a +1 to hit buff, they all have 1 that also is a +1 to hit, and at least 3 units will be +1 to wound, they are -1 for D3, and 6's are instead D3 MW's. Its normally 10 D3 MW's if you cant kill any of the chariots or wound the 2 Hurricanum's on top of the 6 unsaved wounds vs them (ends up being a hard average 26 wounds to a unit of M Guard after all saves) and that is before the 2nd shooting profile and before the Shadow warriors. To be fair that list will be nerf and chariots will be 80/210 for 3 in the GH2020, the local IDK, OBR, Mawtribes, Orruks, wont play against it without me letting them tailor their lists. But i normally try to kill off important units first, as the chariots move very fast in TE and i can spend CP to move farther and still shoot.
So you don’t have masses of -2 or better rend as you stated?
BoC do have a good amount of rend depending on build.
Your other army, you talk about MW instead.
Tons of armies lack decent rend so saying “it’s easy, just use high rend” doesn’t really apply.
It’s like saying you have to just shoot something and assume every army has massed shooting.
If it were really as easy as spamming high rend units, no one would really have an issue against them.
Petrefex would just be considered good at that point rather than extreme.
The main issue is that rend, MW and shooting are all army dependent.
Some armies literally lack multiple of these, meaning they lose multiple viable ways of dealing with certain things.
This is the main reason that my moulder army is used for rogue trader style friendly tournaments. (That and the conversion potential makes them fun)
