I really hope one day they release those twin winged draconic monsters for Fyreslayers!
Maybe Forgeworld, but I wouldn't count too much on it. Otherwise, just use the magma dragon.
Anyway, this update doesn't bring anything new other than the forge and their invocation. 15 Warscrolls mean they just added the Doomseeker and the two units from Underworld (character and Chosen Axes) to the original 12 from the previous book.
Points drops shown. Heroes went up 20 pts. However based on what points drops are being released by the aos celebrities that have the book already (refer to youtube, podcasts, twitter) this army is trending above khorne and goblin book and on par with skaven or slightly below them.
If the ones that kept their beard save can be made battleline they made their spike build visible in less than 30 seconds.
Well as of checking warscroll builder, H-Beserkers need a runefather as general and the shooting ones need the Runemaster as general for those units to become battleline. Large units of these guys will be scary with the amount of attacks and how durable they can be.
yep. Once those can be battleline, you will pretty much always see that being done and then spammed spike-style for the win.
Definitely from what I'm seeing a step up above from khorne and the goblin book. Gut feeling is a step below FEC and on par with skaven. Which follows the pattern they laid out.
Which means if thats true, slaanesh will be on par with khorne, and a solid fun book but below the power curve of their tier 1 creations that they are creating every other or so release.
auticus wrote: Points drops shown. Heroes went up 20 pts. However based on what points drops are being released by the aos celebrities that have the book already (refer to youtube, podcasts, twitter) this army is trending above khorne and goblin book and on par with skaven or slightly below them.
If the ones that kept their beard save can be made battleline they made their spike build visible in less than 30 seconds.
I don't know if I would put them at Skaven level, but they do seem to be quite good.
The stand out unit though is the Hearthguard Berzekers. They are nuts for 120 pts now.
I'm talking about the spike build being at skaven level. The spike build will have the berzerkers spammed en masse. Its definitely from the math anyway a good head better than the goblins or the khorne book can produce, which is where I evaluate the skaven to be.
The FEC book goes over the skaven book. Its definitely up there in that triumvirate of powerbuild (again from the math) because the berzerkers are pretty much on that border of not just undercost, but grossly undercost.
auticus wrote: I'm talking about the spike build being at skaven level. The spike build will have the berzerkers spammed en masse. Its definitely from the math anyway a good head better than the goblins or the khorne book can produce, which is where I evaluate the skaven to be.
The FEC book goes over the skaven book. Its definitely up there in that triumvirate of powerbuild (again from the math) because the berzerkers are pretty much on that border of not just undercost, but grossly undercost.
I agree that as they currently are they are above BoK and GG. I don't know if they are at Skaven level though. I feel it's a pretty solid jump from those two to Skaven, as Skaven started putting up tourny results right out of the gate.
That being said, I hope they are. It really doesn't bother me if underrepresented factions like Fyreslayers are a bit on the stronger side right out of the gate.
It bothers me greatly to see them piss all over the game's balance when they do stuff like that.
It continues the dance of some armies are viable and many others are not. That does nothing positive for the game other than cause people to sell off armies and buy the new ones regularly.
How does it benefit the game as a whole to release a faction, even underrepresented (there is usually a reason why its underrepresented) that is head and shoulders above most of the other factions? (and we're talking even armies that are released with the 2.0 design paradigm that are supposed to all be even keel with each other)
Points actually go up for Fyreslayers. But yeah, Hearthguard Berserkers are nuts at 120 points, but remember you get 5 at that cost. Here is a video from Miniwargaming, who got the book :
They're good, not a problem, but...well, their troops are all infantry and they're not especially the fastest. They also are very single minded in the way they play. One big unit of Berserkers can be a pain in the ass to deal with, sure, but it's expensive as hell and you have tools to keep it from the main action in some armies. Or kill the characters first who boost the berserker's resistance dramatically. They also need a lot more to be "fully within" so that their abilities work, and with 32 mm bases, it can sometimes be difficult.
They are indeed 120 for 5 or 240 for 10. They have a 5+ save and basically a 4+ save after that against anything, AND now have 2 wounds. Additionally they have 2 attacks that are 3/3 -1 2 damage OR have the ability to pop 2 mortal wounds plus normal damage for the pole axe.
For their point cost compared to similar units in the game at or near their power index (being the average damage they produce plus how much damage it takes to remove them on average) they come out to 19% undercost for their value. Compared to the opposite end of the spectrum (varanguard, they are 28% overcost) these guys sit in the deep red zone for being broken based on their points cost. To bring them onto the current bell curve they would need cost 160 points for 5, and that would still make them a strong choice.
That wouldn't be as big of a deal except in addition they can also be made battleline. So the name of the powergame is to spam spam spam these guys.
The other things that have been said, that they have to be fully within, that you just kill the heroes, etc, can be said about any of the factions in the game that are both fine and OP.
I can get a good idea about where this is going based on the math the same as we could with FEC and skaven and seraphon when the summoning came back unchained last summer.
These guys will be the basis of all power builds and will be the unit you pretty much only see with some smattering of other things (heroes not withstanding) here and there.
Now paired against FEC and skaven, or certain other builds like the seraphon power builds, these will probably result in some pretty good games. But this release right now is a kick to the balls to the khorne players and I'm willing to bet based on the roller coaster curve they've been proving (Goblins middling, FEC busted, skaven busted, khorne middling, Fyreslayers at least overly strong (won't say busted just yet) that the slaanesh book will be middling simply because thats been the pattern (middle tier fun book, followed by over the top busted book, repeat)
Fyre slayers can tank like nurgle armies, and additionally do a ton of damage, whereas nurgle armies typically don't do much damage, or armies like khorne can do lots of damage but aren't as tanky. And they aren't paying the price for their ability, they are getting kmart discounts for it. Now the apparent "weakness" is a 4" move. With potential run and move of 16", the only thing missing here is an ability that lets them run and charge to offset that as well. (the double turn can also help with that naturally).
Also apparently a lodge that boosts movement, so even this 'weakness' can be offset through 30 seconds of listbuilding synergizing.
Or just use a runesmiter to tunnel them in, and as an added bonus they are +1 to charge thanks to music. And the smiter can buff them in subsequent phases. And he triggers the 4+ beard save.
It was a mistake to buff them to 2w but let them keep the 4+ beard save. That means it takes 4 damage to kill each guy, so that 120 points is, in effect, a 20-wound unit. Yeah they lose it if they aren't within 10" of a hero but how often will that realistically be. If hero sniping is a big concern bring shooty hearthguard and they can intercept wounds.
Pretty excited with the changes. Mine have been shelved since 2.0 as they were just boring and Magmadroths felt pretty soft, but now the Army looks to be powerful across the board.
nels1031 wrote: Bought all the new stuff for my Fyreslayers.
Pretty excited with the changes. Mine have been shelved since 2.0 as they were just boring and Magmadroths felt pretty soft, but now the Army looks to be powerful across the board.
I think one of the best bonus' will be that you don't have to put 90+ models on the battlefield anymore.
I think they did a great job with this book, for what little is available in the model range. I'm hoping everything sells well enough so that they get a new wave of models in the future.
nels1031 wrote: Bought all the new stuff for my Fyreslayers.
Pretty excited with the changes. Mine have been shelved since 2.0 as they were just boring and Magmadroths felt pretty soft, but now the Army looks to be powerful across the board.
I think one of the best bonus' will be that you don't have to put 90+ models on the battlefield anymore.
I think they did a great job with this book, for what little is available in the model range. I'm hoping everything sells well enough so that they get a new wave of models in the future.
I totally agree; I think while Fyreslayers have not actually been bad in 2nd ed the monumental price to running them properly has put people off who do want to run them. A good move by GW to up the wounds and point cost.
I totally agree; I think while Fyreslayers have not actually been bad in 2nd ed the monumental price to running them properly has put people off who do want to run them. A good move by GW to up the wounds and point cost.
Fyreslayers fell off the map in 2.0. Almost sold mine and started painting up Khorne stuff, before the battletome rumors started.
As far as pricing, I thought for sure we’d get reboxed Hearthguard at the least, like Stormcast received that made their price more reasonable.
Ehhhh...I'd feel like that is just giving Dwarves cavalry for the sake of cavalry, even if they were still Heroes.
Not saying it wouldn't be cool though!
I was surprised that the Rune of Movement thing even still existed personally. They've gotten rid of a lot of those kinds of tricksy bits.
So a GT near me just finished up. The two FEC players won 1st and 2nd place (no surprise) followed by DoK then SCE (also no surprise). But I want to note that the 5th place was KO. That guy has been showing up to tournaments with them since release, sticking with KO even when they got nerfed into oblivion. He shows up knowing he won't do well but tries anyways and through all those losses has gotten really good at the army. It paid off big time when he was able to capitalize on a deployment mistake of a LoN player, killing both Nagash and Arkhan turn 1 (tbf they played another game for fun where the LoN player went first, and he wiped 2/3 the KO army off the table turn 1).
Just goes to show that with a bit of luck and a lot of skill you can do decently once in a while even with a low-tier army. But perhaps more importantly that eating losses against better armies is probably the best practice.
In before people say that this proves the game is totally balanced.
I took the survey as well. Said I'd like to see realm-specific scenery and at the end I noted I'd like to see the return of the Tomb Kings and the Sisters of Sigmar from Mordheim added to AoS (there's always a chance right? ).
Eldarain wrote: I have a feeling the inclusion of the realm specific terrain is a sign we are getting some and I couldn't be happier about it. Very cool.
I'd rather see realm specific npc/wandering monsters/critters - but terrain is a nice second place!
Eldarain wrote: I have a feeling the inclusion of the realm specific terrain is a sign we are getting some and I couldn't be happier about it. Very cool.
I'd rather see realm specific npc/wandering monsters/critters - but terrain is a nice second place!
I would be perfectly happy with that too. Really happy with how things are getting filled in/fleshed out. The RPG should be wonderful in that regard too.
Eldarain wrote: I have a feeling the inclusion of the realm specific terrain is a sign we are getting some and I couldn't be happier about it. Very cool.
I'd rather see realm specific npc/wandering monsters/critters - but terrain is a nice second place!
They may have already started with the wandering monsters...
NinthMusketeer wrote: So a GT near me just finished up. The two FEC players won 1st and 2nd place (no surprise)...
Out of interest, what's so bad about Flesheater Courts? I keep reading they're overpowered but it's generally treated as self-evident and never explained.
Eldarain wrote: I have a feeling the inclusion of the realm specific terrain is a sign we are getting some and I couldn't be happier about it. Very cool.
I'd rather see realm specific npc/wandering monsters/critters - but terrain is a nice second place!
Both would be cool. The best thing about having the different realms is that you can have a different feel to your game depending on the setting. Comprehensive rules and terrain models would go a long way to support that.
That said, my top priority is a complete line of themed terrain for AoS in the same way 40k has. The initial batch of AoS terrain wasn't all that coherent or repeatable, and the Azyrite ruins aren't the kind of size I'd expect from GW.
Out of interest, what's so bad about Flesheater Courts? I keep reading they're overpowered but it's generally treated as self-evident and never explained.
First and foremost it is the amount of summoning. Some are estimating that FEC can summon over 700 points per game.
Its amount of summoning combined with some very steeply undercosted units that do much more damage than their points cost, giving the army a lot of extra free points combined with a lot of undercost units that are in essence more free points (since if for example a 200 point unit operates as a 350 point unit and you take say... 4 of them you are running as a force 600 points stronger than what you paid for. The amount you are undercost dictates how turbo-efficient you are... 600 points in 2000 points is over 25% more efficient than your points cost)
So combine the two. Free points from mass summoning + turbo efficiency with certain unit costs = paying 2000 points for an army that is operating as if it were 3000 or more points.
If AOS armies represented cars, then FEC is definitely in the turbo charged elite need for speed category. When they are paired up against most of the rest of the game running stock sedans, they are running on easy mode.
But this is also by design to appeal to spike players, I feel. Because certainly anyone with elementary school math designing the game would have seen this months before release since it took the community less than a minute to find it.
Not everyone gets masses of free stuff or overly strong buffs. Just some factions. Many of their latest work sits on the line of free stuff but not game tilting. Like the khorne book, or the goblin book. Those are pretty well reigned in but fun and do give you some buffs. Then there is the skaven and FEC book. Those are on a whole other level. The fyre slayer book appears to be positioned fairly high up there too with the berzerkers being given a deep discount for what it does, but whether or not its on par with skaven or FEC or simply just tier1-lite remains to be seen (we don't have the book yet we only have the point costs and war scrolls to go off of)
Funnily enough, as a FEC player myself I don't find things undercosted at all, I find them all overcosted based on what they do. It's essentially just an attrition army that has no punch other than rolling buckets of dice. Ghouls die to a stiff breeze, Horrors have no Rend and are just bags of wounds, Flayers can fly and have some rend so aren't bad, and the monsters are nasty. There's regeneration, which means you have to really focus to get them down.
The real abusive things you see are spamming Archregents (each of whom can summon up to 200 points), or Gristlegore which can take Zombie Dragons and Terrorgheists as Battleline.
The rest is basically just an army of chaff with very little rend and very little mortal wounds outside of terrorgheists trying to roll a 6 to hit in order to get the auto 6 mortals
I think there is general agreement that ghouls are one of the few units where the 'costed to account for returning models' holds true. For a 10pt/model unit they are simply bad. But they come back in droves. Horrors are the same but could potentially use a 10 point bump upward. Dragons (mounted and unmounted) are reasonably costed for what they do as well. The ghast courtier IMO is undercosted on strict performance but since he eats one of your leader slots it is appropriate.
Everything else varies between overpowered to downright broken.
Others have covered that and the summoning well, another huge factor is one of the best command abilities in the game on an army that rarely needs CP for anything else outside 1-2 for summons the first round. Being able to fight again, immediately, is extremely strong. Couple it with units that have ridiculous offense and it gets exponentially worse.
The danger of FEC largely comes from the terrorgheist and the undercosted archregent. The terrorgheist has a bite with three attacks that does 6 mortals on a six. There is a mount trait which let's you reroll that. With the FEC allegiance ability you can can do that twice in a turn. If you are running gristlegore you can do that before anyone else fights. Also if it dies you can make it attack again. Finally before you you remove the mini it does D3 mortals to each nearby unit.
I haven't even mentioned the other attacks, it's 3 inch reach which means you better park your heroes 6 inches back,the summoning, the magic which can give it a 5+ mortal wound save and it's ability to heal itself. A gristlegore terrorgheist has a max damage potential of over 100 damage in a single round of combat. There isn't much in the game that will survive that.
There were three tournaments last weekend. FEC won all of them. A FEC army has gone undefeated in Every single tournament since the book came out.
Only thing that concerns me is that the lead time for GHB and CA tend to be a few months which means we probably won't see any point changes to FEC where it might be required.
There was a playtester that tweeted last week in response to someone complaining about those books that mistakes were made with skaven and FEC and they learned from those mistakes with fyreslayers.
So at least they are recognizing that those books (skaven and fec) are mega bent.
I'm actually more curious about how they will be rectifying those books long term.
There was a similar situation with Tzeentch being busted a year and a half ago. They had to effectively change mechanics (at least with respect to pink/blue/brimstone horrors and do a huge points cost adjustment to bring them in line.
Should be around July normally (was there right along soulwars box last year iirc).
And it's a book, so it's printed at least 4-6 months in advance, so it'll miss rectifications of the most recent battletomes. I'm really curious about the books that are going to be released in this "fast battletome drop" season for AoS.
If they keep dropping one to two a month as they are now then I'd wager we'll see Chaos and Destruction finished, Death is already finished and then its just mopping up with Order.
There's a few wildcards - eg a few armies that have 2.0 tomes but don't have terrain and/or endless spells as well as a few armies that are likely to be combined which will bring the number down.
There's also at least one new army coming this year to up the numbers. But by and large I figure by Christmas most of AoS will be running 2.0 Battletomes.
I think this time next year the Generals Handbook will be able to make a much more meaningful step toward addressing balance because by then (even accounting the 4-6 months lag time) much of the game will be running on the same edition.
Granted I am biased as I am mainly an FEC player so I like seeing my army in the limelight as opposed to the dumpster, but the real issue is Gristlegore. The other courts aren't that bad; nasty but not OP. Gristlegore is the main outlier. I would not mind seeing it nerfed because I don't like Gristlegore anyways (I like Hollowmourne, the Horror one, and Blisterskin, the Flayer one)
Summoning and second turn are the two big bugbears that AoS has to contend with.
Whilst both can work both can easily be very broken.
I also think the second turn is just mechanically the wrong idea for a game where player turns basically locks one player into getting to play the game and the other only able to react in the form of dice rolls. Doing that for two turns in a row means one player gets hammered and can't actually respond to it. Sure it swings back to them, but by that point they've taken two turns of losses to enemy attacks - not as crippling if their enemy is close combat focused (since those alternate anyway and you can at least fight back); but if their opponent is magic or ranged based then its a harsh hammering without any retaliation.
I am super surprised if GW will ever disclose what percentage of people were pro double turn vs those against double turn are... It was asked in their grand survey.
Oddly enough, a few rules were called into question:
Battalions as one drop
First priority when deployed first
Double turn
I think summoning as a mechanic works - its more the potential for it to get out of control for several armies that is brought into question. Ergo not the act of summoning itself but its effectiveness on the tabletop.
Elmir wrote: I am super surprised if GW will ever disclose what percentage of people were pro double turn vs those against double turn are... It was asked in their grand survey.
Oddly enough, a few rules were called into question:
Battalions as one drop
First priority when deployed first
Double turn
But summoning wasn't being looked into however.
If they are smart they won't disclose much. They will just say they have taken the survey into account for future editions etc. and they can hide behind it when making changes without actually disclosing the survey results.
Summoning mechanics are new, if they put them into question, they would have to revise battle tomes that are being printed and worked on right now. The time to question summoning will be when 3.0 is being made.
The only issue with addressing summoning would be considering lowering the points cost for many armies that use it otherwise many customers will be a bit irate if their 2K army becomes worth 3K but they can never deploy it all.
Then again I figure as AoS matures we will see point drops or the base army size (2K) go up and the number of models increase
I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.
GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.
Eldarsif wrote: I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.
GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.
Aye and that's a huge issue - one player is getting all the "fun" whilst the other has little to do. The other big issue is that it really punishes one player. Sure if you're losing and get a double turn its neat; but in almost any other situation it just turns the game state around to heavily benefit the player who got the first double turn. Plus there's nothing you can do within the rules to help you get nor avoid it; its purely a single dice roll situation.
Personally I think with the models and endless spells and terrain features AoS already has its own identity. It doesn't need the double turn to be special.
I think summoning can be fine as well - provided its not off the chain. Like how they did goblins or khorne or nurgle, I think those are fine.
How they did legion of nagash, FEC, and seraphon - most definitely not fine. Those are off the chain.
Double turn needs to die in a dumpster fire. We had a campaign meeting to discuss alt activation, igougo, or aos double turn, and it was heavily slanted toward alt activation, with no one out of like 20 people wanting double turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly I am surprised so many people defend the double turn online, because in person almost everyone I have ever talked to in the past four years or so of AOS has hated the double turn (not just in my local, when I go to adepticon and other regional events).
I thought double turn was "okay" when the lethality of the game was much less. However - as with many GW products - lethality has increased, especially thanks to MW spam and more. This means that double turns, if anything, have escalated in how badly they can consign you to be wiped out.
They've shown a willingness to put a cap on things in AoS. Ie. Ally cap scaling with game size. Perhaps the addition of a sideboard of summon options set at a certain point percentage based on game size could be added.
Elmir wrote: I'm actually more curious about how they will be rectifying those books long term.
There was a similar situation with Tzeentch being busted a year and a half ago. They had to effectively change mechanics (at least with respect to pink/blue/brimstone horrors and do a huge points cost adjustment to bring them in line.
Horror summoning is the strongest element of Tzeentch summoning, and probably the only overpowered thing they have left. What nerfed Tzeentch was across-the-board point increases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: I think summoning as a mechanic works - its more the potential for it to get out of control for several armies that is brought into question. Ergo not the act of summoning itself but its effectiveness on the tabletop.
Agreed. And I think this is the general mentality of the community, even if there is disagreement on if/how balanced it is right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Granted I am biased as I am mainly an FEC player so I like seeing my army in the limelight as opposed to the dumpster, but the real issue is Gristlegore. The other courts aren't that bad; nasty but not OP. Gristlegore is the main outlier. I would not mind seeing it nerfed because I don't like Gristlegore anyways (I like Hollowmourne, the Horror one, and Blisterskin, the Flayer one)
In terms of overall build its Gristlegore-Blisterskin-Feast Day as all being entirely broken. A GT near me had FEC get 1st and 2nd, first was blisterskin while second was gristlegore. The last two rounds had the blisterskin beat the gristlegore, then the blisterskin beat 3-ballista stormcast. The latter matchup is one gristlegore tends to lose, but blisterskin does not thanks to the artifact.
I think the other issue with a lot of the FEC is that they can do their summoning early in the game before most players can even have a chance to counter. With armies ilke Daughters of Khaine they are tough, but you can spot the patterns and go for the leaders/thrones and slow/destroy them so that you can reduce their power.
Ergo they are tough but you can work out ways to counter it with most armies.
Note this isn't saying that DoK might not benefit from a slight adjustment to lower their power curve at the top end; bur rather that its at least a surmountable challenge rather than one that is very hard to near impossible.
They put a "sneak peek" at what are likely changes to the Sylvaneth book into the Warband rules.
Martial Memories: Tree-Revenants are suffused with the echoes of their predecessors’ lives, and can draw on centuries of experience when they go to war. At the start of the combat phase, roll a dice for each friendly unit with this ability that is within 3" of any enemy units. On a 3+ that unit fights at the start of the combat phase, before the players pick any other units to fight in that combat phase. That unit cannot fight again in that combat phase unless an ability or spell allows it to fight more than once.
I think they are starting to go down the path like they did with MWs/FnP where a once rare and unique ability is becoming common. To me that dilutes the flavor of it. Their old/current rule (re-roll one dice per phase) doesn't scale and often doesn't do much, but I like the idea of that martial experience making them more reliable. Would have liked to see something along those lines, even just as simple as re-rolling X in combat by default. Or it could be something new like, say, ignoring hit penalties (or even just hit penalties of -1). That would give them a unique but easy-to-play-with rule.
For that matter ignoring hit penalties of -1 would be a nice thing to see as a reoccurring rule just among aelves/psuedo-aelves because it fits their martial expertise.
Reading the last two entries in the timeline section of the new Fyreslayer tome reveals that first, work is afoot amongst the disparate Duardin factions to reunite as a race, or at least work together more closely once the truth of ur-gold/Grimnir is accidentally revealed. Secondly, there are rumors that Grungni has returned from self imposed exile and is building something that will also herald re-unification, with rumors ranging from it being a machine of some sort, a new Duardin bloodline, or trying to find a way to bring back Vallaya(not named, but it mentions the missing goddess of the hearth). The last line mentions that it could just be wild rumor and/or drunken hopes, but the fact that its two entries back to back that explicitly mention reunification seems very suspicious.
Sounds like Dispossessed may have something in the works?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think they are starting to go down the path like they did with MWs/FnP where a once rare and unique ability is becoming common. To me that dilutes the flavor of it. Their old/current rule (re-roll one dice per phase) doesn't scale and often doesn't do much, but I like the idea of that martial experience making them more reliable. Would have liked to see something along those lines, even just as simple as re-rolling X in combat by default. Or it could be something new like, say, ignoring hit penalties (or even just hit penalties of -1). That would give them a unique but easy-to-play-with rule.
For that matter ignoring hit penalties of -1 would be a nice thing to see as a reoccurring rule just among aelves/psuedo-aelves because it fits their martial expertise.
Maybe I'm weird, but I like it as a rule myself. It lets them have a pseudo-Aelf flair while still giving them a fluffy bit(as the 'souls' animating the Tree-Revenants might not be fully awakened).
Still gotta see Wargrove benefits and the like too.
With regards to the "ignoring hit penalties", I genuinely feel like there aren't too many of them in the game currently to make me need to ignore them. I will say that if Waywatchers don't get to be a whole other level of sharpshooter compared to the Knight-Venator though, we might have a problem.
It may be local meta, but hit penalties are something I see all the time. Most battletomes have some access to it, anyone can (and not-infrequently does) take gryph feather charm, there are a good number of realm spells that add hit penalties (though I don't know how frequently those are used), look out sir is a thing for shooting, and some armies like Skaven, Gloomspite, or Slaanesh will almost always have notable hit penalty elements.
But again, I don't have any sort of overall stats on the matter. Just my anecdotal perspective.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Predicting it now: Vostarg with Lords of the Lodge containing a 30-man Hzerker unit will be a dominant Fyreslayer tourney build. Run & charge, +1 to hit, can be picked to attack twice.
Haven't gone through it in detail but this seems at BoC level, where the vast majority is pretty balanced but there are a few problem elements/exploits that lead to tourney power with a proper build. I would rate it as tolerable, since it requires deliberate optimization to cheese* out.
*It is definitely spicy cheese, the kind that sets your mouth on fyre.
The problem is simply that going through the factions, run & charge is just so grossly more useful than anything else that they might as well not have the other options in there.
Finished The Red Feast by Gav Thorpe this weekend.
A little summary/review:
Potential spoilers:
Spoiler:
It charts the embracing of Chaos (Khorne in this case) of Athol Kul and Threx Skullbrand, who we know now as Khorgos Kul, and his Bloodsecrator from the first Age of Sigmar starter set. The biggest draw for me was that its set entirely at the dawn of the Age of Chaos. Its definitely not the utopia that I always got the impression from how the pre-chaos Age of Myth were portrayed. It seems Chaos always had a foothold in the Mortal Realms, its just that Sigmar whooped most of the overt Chaos-y stuff out of the human tribes. For the nomadic tribes of the Flamescar Plateau, Sigmar is a distant deity and only a few have completely embraced him as patron, with some tribes still unkowingly maintaining cultural ties to their Chaos past.
Both characters were pretty well written, though Athol/Khorgos is the star of the show(thats him on the cover, notice the subtle Khorne symbol on his spear blade) with his hopes and motivations much more realized than Threx’s. Long story short, Athol/Khorgos is an honorable man motivated to keep his people alive in the face of an overwhelming and seemingly Tzeentchian threat, whereas Threx simply wants his people to return to violent glory, rather than become civilized and embrace the worship and cultural influence of Sigmar. I never really felt sympathy for Threx, but Khorgos was sorta put in a no win situation, though he had a few ways to avoid his future. None of which were particularly nice for him or his people, but in hindsight would’ve been better for the Realm of Aqshy as a whole.
Circumstances set up in this book will probably make Athol/Khorgos a bit more tragic in the next book(s), but I felt the ending was a bit rushed and Athol/Khorgos’s embrace of Khorne a bit hasty, considering he was a patient and thoughtful character up to that point. I suppose he was pushed into it out of desperation, but it seemed fairly prompt.
The tale is also told concurrently with a man living in a cave, compelled to paint pictures of whats to come. For 80% of the book he’s an ancillary character, but then gets completely involved in both character’s story toward the end. I’m not sure who/what he is on the tabletop, if anything. His trials were fun to read as well, being hunted by Beastmen at times.
I was looking forward to seeing another prominent character from the first AoS starter set make an appearance, but it looks like Gav is holding him for the next book.
I wouldn’t call this necessary reading, there are no shocking revelations and it obviously doesn’t push the AoS narrative forward as its a prequel, but it was a quick, entertaining and light read.
So now that warhammer community posted the slaanesh spells and allegiance abilities.
The book is well done, a lot of fun, and I'd give it high marks alongside the khorne and goblin books. Nothing sticks out as mega busted.
That being said, the max slaanesh build is going to be outclassed currently by the FEC and skaven and berzerker spam. A great player will be able to overcome this, but this is another force that if you are in a competitive meta you will be taking on for hard-mode.
I hope GHB 2019 addresses these gross builds and brings everything down to the same level as the goblin, khorne, and slaanesh book.
They have the ability to force you to fight last which cancels out if you always fight first yes. Thats pretty solid. That depends on your heroes so you'll want to take as many heroes as you can afford.
auticus wrote: They have the ability to force you to fight last which cancels out if you always fight first yes. Thats pretty solid. That depends on your heroes so you'll want to take as many heroes as you can afford.
I'm hoping the canceling out striking first becomes the general rule (and that lots of armies gain some kind of access to taking that away) to take some of the edge off this activation war.
auticus wrote: They have the ability to force you to fight last which cancels out if you always fight first yes. Thats pretty solid. That depends on your heroes so you'll want to take as many heroes as you can afford.
I'm hoping the canceling out striking first becomes the general rule (and that lots of armies gain some kind of access to taking that away) to take some of the edge off this activation war.
I agree. It improves the ability for tactical/counter-play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: So now that warhammer community posted the slaanesh spells and allegiance abilities.
The book is well done, a lot of fun, and I'd give it high marks alongside the khorne and goblin books. Nothing sticks out as mega busted.
Agreed on all counts save one; the summon-spam potential seems very high. But I will reserve my opinions until I get the whole thing.
That being said, the max slaanesh build is going to be outclassed currently by the FEC and skaven and berzerker spam. A great player will be able to overcome this, but this is another force that if you are in a competitive meta you will be taking on for hard-mode.
I hope GHB 2019 addresses these gross builds and brings everything down to the same level as the goblin, khorne, and slaanesh book.
Likely, but we cannot make that call for sure without the point costs. I will note that almost nothing in Fyreslayers is OPexcept hearthguard berzerkers, and that is entirely due to their point cost.
Yes I am just posting a preliminary opinion based on what we know currently.
Hearthguard berzerkers are the only thing OP in that book yes but because they can be battleline and spammed that makes that point moot because thats all you will see in someone that is breaking the game.
I guess my argument is that if they were properly costed the ability to be battleline would be a non-issue, whereas could they not be battleline the points cost still would. Being battleline is not actually the problem, it just makes it worse.
Super exicted with the Slaanesh preview today. Will just continue my own work on making my own mortals of slaanesh, which I'm perfectly fine with. New spells, neat ways to play the army, and fun rules interactions are what I always wanted.
If it's viable I may reboot my all-cavalry Slaanesh army. I had one but sold it off when GHB1 made it non-legal. If only I had known GHB2 would change that.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If it's viable I may reboot my all-cavalry Slaanesh army. I had one but sold it off when GHB1 made it non-legal. If only I had known GHB2 would change that.
Out of interest how did you transport such an army? Even if the points change, right now one can put a silly number of chariots (regular and all the way to exalted) as well as seekers into a single army. Even at 1K points, let alone going toward 2K.
Also did you put the whips on everything or stick to the blades purely for the ease of not having long whips to risk breaking on so many models.
Ok I should be fair that there was a KoS so it wasn't *all* cavalry. I had two gorebeast chariots, 12 horsemen with javelins, 6 knights, 3 fiends, 6 seekers, a smattering of characters, and the battalion from everchosen. Altogether it ate up a good chunk of points. The 24 hellstriders also did, for that matter...
And yeah, I skipped out on whips. Dealing with those is among Slaanesh's most evil torments.
I didn't use a case but rather an open-topped plastic box-tray-thing I had around.
Eldarsif wrote: I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.
GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.
We are having more or less the opposite here. Even the most competitive guys do not mind, or outright like, double turn. And generally speaking they are not game deciding in my experience of the games.
Eldarsif wrote: I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.
GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.
We are having more or less the opposite here. Even the most competitive guys do not mind, or outright like, double turn. And generally speaking they are not game deciding in my experience of the games.
I set up to get the double turns, 1 drop armies, let them go 1st and hope for double turn. I hate double turns.
To be completely honest, the way AOS has been going just has soured me on it. It feels like they are going TOO crazy about everything. I'm sure it will even out over time but as of now it's just constant tome creep upon tome creep.
I think I'll be focusing on 40k for the time being. Try as I might I just can't get "into" the AOS vibe right now.
Wayniac wrote: To be completely honest, the way AOS has been going just has soured me on it. It feels like they are going TOO crazy about everything. I'm sure it will even out over time but as of now it's just constant tome creep upon tome creep.
I think I'll be focusing on 40k for the time being. Try as I might I just can't get "into" the AOS vibe right now.
Speaking as a Wanderers, Scourge Privateers/Shadowblades, and Idoneth player...I'm fine with the pace and balance right now. The only thing I'm concerned with is them actually getting armies out. Balance can be sorted a bit more over time, but we're now two editions in and some factions still have yet to see Allegiance abilities let alone Battletomes.
Eldarsif wrote: I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.
GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.
We are having more or less the opposite here. Even the most competitive guys do not mind, or outright like, double turn. And generally speaking they are not game deciding in my experience of the games.
I was able to observe the games at a recent GT near me. Naturally there were a lot of round 1-2 doubles by virtue of so many games being played. I remember one where they player who got it lost (the other player got the round 2-3 double).
Similarly, I can count on one hand the number of games where I have gotten the 1-2 double and lost.
That is my experience, so I imagine anyone can see why I would be heavily against it.
So I finally got around to finishing my read of the new Fyreslayers. A really great battletome. The rewritten warscrolls continue the Khorne trend of better design, less gimmicky, and more tactical. The point costs are pretty well balanced barring hearthguard berzerkers, which are so wildly out of whack I wonder if there was simply an error along the line. Not many battalions but then there are not many units, and the battalions available have good and thematic benefits. The specific loges aren't tremendously well balanced but not really bad either; they add more than they take away.
The fluff is excellent. A ton of extra details packed in there beyond just what the army does on the battlefield. Insights into society, rituals, history, etc are welcome for a fluff lover like me. A bunch of paint scheme examples, some guides including a bit on doing volcanic bases, much-improved paint work for Greyfyrd, and lots of other little bits in there.
Eldarsif wrote: I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.
GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.
We are having more or less the opposite here. Even the most competitive guys do not mind, or outright like, double turn. And generally speaking they are not game deciding in my experience of the games.
I was able to observe the games at a recent GT near me. Naturally there were a lot of round 1-2 doubles by virtue of so many games being played. I remember one where they player who got it lost (the other player got the round 2-3 double).
Similarly, I can count on one hand the number of games where I have gotten the 1-2 double and lost.
That is my experience, so I imagine anyone can see why I would be heavily against it.
Aye its a mechanic where whoever gets it first has an extremely likely chance of winning, whilst at the same time the opponent not only has to sit there for two full turns doing nothing but rolling saves and removing models; but increasingly will have the view that they've just lost the game. Even if they could win chances are their moral is broken and the fun sapped out of the game.
Honestly most of those I see who like the mechanic either state that they've hardly encountered it in their own games (ergo its more that its so random for them that they don't mind losing or winning the odd game due to it); or they "want a greater challenge". The latter is fine, but the latter is why we've got open and narrative play. You can build more challenge into the system if you want; you can play with missmatched points etc... I just don't feel that missmatch should be in the core balanced rules.
Sadly it seems GW really likes it and its going to be hard thing to push out of the system, even though I think that its possibly the single biggest issue with the rules as they are now.
Double turn is a really, really bad mechanic. It is bad from a game balance point of view, as it makes the game be decided by random chance rather than player choices.
It is bad from a narrative point of view, because it makes no sense for your army to stand there doing nothing while the other army goes into overdrive.
It is bad from a fun point of view as your only participation for a very long period of time is removing your models.
I don't see how anyone benefits from this. The fact that GW includes it convinces me that they have a deeply unprofessional and incompetent design team.
Sadly it seems GW really likes it and its going to be hard thing to push out of the system, even though I think that its possibly the single biggest issue with the rules as they are now.
Its not just GW. Whenever I am involved in a discussion on double turns it seems I get run out of the room because double turn is the greatest thing to ever happen to wargaming to a lot of people.
It is said to be hugely tactical (though I have never once had anyone explain or show a report that illustrates other than "you have to sometimes hold some models back so they don't get double turned" - but you're talking about a game where people can teleport or charge across the table in a turn so I don't see where that goes really)
It is said to be "exciting" because if you get the double turn you will likely be at a huge advantage, and that outweighs the times you don't get it.
That is amazing. Different strokes for different folks I suppose, but wargames take too long to set up and prepare for to have them be so dependent on pure random chance. Snakes and Ladders has a lot less time investment for the same experience.
Sadly it seems GW really likes it and its going to be hard thing to push out of the system, even though I think that its possibly the single biggest issue with the rules as they are now.
Its not just GW. Whenever I am involved in a discussion on double turns it seems I get run out of the room because double turn is the greatest thing to ever happen to wargaming to a lot of people.
It is said to be hugely tactical (though I have never once had anyone explain or show a report that illustrates other than "you have to sometimes hold some models back so they don't get double turned" - but you're talking about a game where people can teleport or charge across the table in a turn so I don't see where that goes really)
It is said to be "exciting" because if you get the double turn you will likely be at a huge advantage, and that outweighs the times you don't get it.
GW is willing to change their stance on it, there is a reason why they asked multi large GT's about it and the community survey.
It is one of my dearest hopes to see it gone. However we will likely never know the true result of the survey. We will only be able to divine the tea leaves by some GHB 2020 change, but that leaves us a whole other year of having to have it in our game or houseruling it out.
The only way I've come up with for avoiding the double turn is by outdropping my opponent and giving away the first turn. If I win the turn subsequently I can then give it up and ensure "I go you go". If my opponent wins they almost always go first.
The problem with this though, the speed of things these days, if you don't go first, chances are you're spending turn on turn trying to knock the opponent off objectives.
lare2 wrote: The only way I've come up with for avoiding the double turn is by outdropping my opponent and giving away the first turn. If I win the turn subsequently I can then give it up and ensure "I go you go". If my opponent wins they almost always go first.
The problem with this though, the speed of things these days, if you don't go first, chances are you're spending turn on turn trying to knock the opponent off objectives.
That is the real argument for rolled initiative; first turn is an advantage and sometimes a rather significant one. It is nowhere near the advantage that a double turn gives; even with a 1/3 chance I see it being assumed in conversations that everyone wants to go second and the point of low-drop deployment referred to as 'secure second turn'.
Pushing VP from objectives to the end of the round (instead of turn) would go a long way. The issue would then be alpha-strike builds being a problem. But those are already an issue with the double turn in place so the solution would be addressing those specifically. Though it could also be tackled with something along the lines of a matched play rule where all bonuses to charge rolls are ignored round 1, or more scenarios that penalize reserves.
First turn super advantage is indeed annoying but if I have to choose between the two I'll take first turn advantage over double turn.
Its at least more engaging.
Get rid of who deploys first picks first turn (i wouldn't mind who deploys first gets +1 to the turn roll) and screen properly and I don't see it being anywhere near the negative play experience that it is today.
I love turn priority. But then I've yet to lose when my opponent gets it so my bias is probably showing.
I voted to keep turn priority, take away single drop battalions, and change how going first is determined.
Interested to see where this takes us
@Auticus
You're describing 40k deployment and first turn which would make this pretty much a 40k clone with fantasy models. Personally I like the core of each game feeling different and don't want it to be close combat 40k.
auticus wrote: First turn super advantage is indeed annoying but if I have to choose between the two I'll take first turn advantage over double turn.
Its at least more engaging.
Get rid of who deploys first picks first turn (i wouldn't mind who deploys first gets +1 to the turn roll) and screen properly and I don't see it being anywhere near the negative play experience that it is today.
I personally prefer having the double turn over first turn super advantage any day. However, I would agree with getting rid of whoever deploys first getting priority. First turn should really be a roll off with first deployed winning ties.
I think alternating activation by unit would be an excellent thing to add to the game. The rules are generally modular enough that you could do it. It reduces the random element and keeps both players engaged, as well as giving a lot more decision points and making play more dynamic.
Alternate by phase, do the shooting phase 'I pick, you pick' like the combat phase. Two combat phases, the second having reverse initiative to the first.
That would also be good, but I really like how the game changes when you respond to each units moves and actions with your own.
But I would be fine with either. IGOUGO is not terrible or anything, but IGOUGO combined with the ability for a double turn is really really poor game design.
I am really flabbergasted that professional, full time game designers do not think so!
My preference is alternate activation. Either by phase or by unit.
As you can see by the thread, there are lots of people that love double turn. In my opinion I doubt they will be getting rid of it. This is one of those times I can say fortunately (for me) the people around me also hate it so we house ruled it out.
I still can't get over how all soldiers in 40k can suddenly shoot twice as fast if they get charged. It should be -2 to hit but eats your next shooting phase for that unit.
Are Free Peoples just human factions? I was reading the 2018 corebook and it says that Free Peoples covers a lot of different races. But yet, people keep referencing them as a human faction.
"Free Peoples" refers to humans, "Free Cities" to the multiple races banded together. "Freeguild" on the other hand is the bulk of Empire stuff. The rest is cut or scattered around; Ironweld has the artillery, while Collegite Arcane has the mages and Devoted have the warrior priests & flagellents.
NinthMusketeer wrote: "Free Peoples" refers to humans, "Free Cities" to the multiple races banded together. "Freeguild" on the other hand is the bulk of Empire stuff. The rest is cut or scattered around; Ironweld has the artillery, while Collegite Arcane has the mages and Devoted have the warrior priests & flagellents.
Per the Core Book:
Age of Sigmar Core Book pg 140 wrote:
The Free Peoples Where Sigmar and his allies have struck hardest, the lands have been claimed in the name of Order and progress. Generations have gone by since the first Stormcast Eternals descended from the Tempest, and an alliance of humanity, aelves, and duardin has thrived, united in the face of their common enemy.
It then goes on to list all the Aelf, Duardin, and human 'legacy' factions.
It is really weird because the Free Peoples in fluff seems to refer to Duardin, Aelves, and humans while the listing in the AoS app is strictly Freeguild stuff. If I had to guess? It's a holdover from the launch of AoS where Free Peoples did refer just to the humans.
NinthMusketeer wrote: "Free Peoples" refers to humans, "Free Cities" to the multiple races banded together. "Freeguild" on the other hand is the bulk of Empire stuff. The rest is cut or scattered around; Ironweld has the artillery, while Collegite Arcane has the mages and Devoted have the warrior priests & flagellents.
Per the Core Book:
Age of Sigmar Core Book pg 140 wrote:
The Free Peoples Where Sigmar and his allies have struck hardest, the lands have been claimed in the name of Order and progress. Generations have gone by since the first Stormcast Eternals descended from the Tempest, and an alliance of humanity, aelves, and duardin has thrived, united in the face of their common enemy.
It then goes on to list all the Aelf, Duardin, and human 'legacy' factions.
It is really weird because the Free Peoples in fluff seems to refer to Duardin, Aelves, and humans while the listing in the AoS app is strictly Freeguild stuff. If I had to guess? It's a holdover from the launch of AoS where Free Peoples did refer just to the humans.
There is ambiguity, I'm going off the GW website where free peoples is the human stuff.
Kanluwen wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if that's just for ease of access like they did with the "Aelves" listing.
Yeah I could be totally off.
Like Nova_Impero was saying, it seems as though the intention is that lorewise Free Peoples equates to all of the races that inhabit the Free Cities...but GW has just placed them as humanity for the sake of not having 88 entries(44 from all the Aelves, 10 Dispossessed, and 34 from what is Ironweld, Freeguild, and Devoted of Sigmar) in one entry on the webstore.
Kanluwen wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if that's just for ease of access like they did with the "Aelves" listing.
Yeah I could be totally off.
Like Nova_Impero was saying, it seems as though the intention is that lorewise Free Peoples equates to all of the races that inhabit the Free Cities...but GW has just placed them as humanity for the sake of not having 88 entries(44 from all the Aelves, 10 Dispossessed, and 34 from what is Ironweld, Freeguild, and Devoted of Sigmar) in one entry on the webstore.
I think you nail it on the head. I think the Free Peoples, maybe the Freeguild, should have units and art that show the different races in those groups. But the problem is that people want their "pure" human armies because everyone has a "pure" army. Given how Age of Sigmar is showing the different Order races fighting alongside one another, I would expect to see an army and Battletome that reflects this new cooperation than just scatter groups of different races.
Grensche wrote: Anyone noticed that Slaanesh faction focus art and saw good ol' fashioned Greenskinz in the background? Here's hoping for a Greenskinz battle tombe.
That would make me happy, as I own a ton of Greenskinz, but I'm guessing they've been axed. The only way I could see them doing a Greenskinz battletome is if they released a whole new line of models to replace the line that they cut, which is definitely possible but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Relatedely I just bought a Gutbusters army on a whim and I'm trying to convince myself not to go crazy buying more until we know if Gutbusters are here to stay or if they're next on the chopping block.
Kanluwen wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if that's just for ease of access like they did with the "Aelves" listing.
Yeah I could be totally off.
Like Nova_Impero was saying, it seems as though the intention is that lorewise Free Peoples equates to all of the races that inhabit the Free Cities...but GW has just placed them as humanity for the sake of not having 88 entries(44 from all the Aelves, 10 Dispossessed, and 34 from what is Ironweld, Freeguild, and Devoted of Sigmar) in one entry on the webstore.
I think you nail it on the head. I think the Free Peoples, maybe the Freeguild, should have units and art that show the different races in those groups. But the problem is that people want their "pure" human armies because everyone has a "pure" army. Given how Age of Sigmar is showing the different Order races fighting alongside one another, I would expect to see an army and Battletome that reflects this new cooperation than just scatter groups of different races.
Those rules do exist, just are not apparent since there is little to no hint of them if you don't already know where they are. Anyways, the Firestorm campaign supplement has rules in it for Free Cities, which use the generic Order allegiance with a little extra benefit in exchange for staying with the factions resident to that city. I want to say there are... six? There's one each for Destruction, Death, and Chaos too, though the Death one is so bad next to LoN it may as well not (just like generic Death as a whole for that matter).
NinthMusketeer wrote: I see it differently; I see that the intent is free cities have the mixed races and free peoples is supposed to refer to humans.
I'd be inclined to agree with that if the AoS Core Book wasn't published after Firestorm.
Like I said, I think it's simply that GW is using the term Free Peoples to cover multiple things. It happened a ton over the years with stuff like Skitarii or Tech-Guard.
Even now I think a lot of AoS lore is a bit in flux. Whilst GW should have, in theory, been able to craft a really iron cast lore I think the opening idea for AoS was so free form that many of the early lore points are changing and settling.
Honestly its more as if the Mythic Age almost didn't happen, then again we can possibly just blame it on instabilities within the realms following the end of the Age of Chaos and the corruption the lands experienced (and which some still experience).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Important note - the GWUK Website has updated the Slaanesh page. New title for it (hosts removed) and they've also removed the Lord on Food, Lord on Mount and old Keeper of Secrets. It's what I expected though a day earlier than I thought they'd do it (I figured they'd do it this weekend or run the stock down on the metal models unless there was a last minute rush and they ran out last night).
The herald in resin has remained, odd that they didn't replace her with a plastic variation with this update wave.
Wrath and Rapture is still listed though - guessing that they can't just dump stock on that one. Though interestingly its not yet listed as last-chance to order.
Losing booby worm lord makes me sad. I'm glad I have him in metal in my display case. Sadly... I'll have to find alternate rules to use him with. His current rules were garbage anyway. Perhaps he can "count as" a keeper of secrets or a slaanesh demon prince.
auticus wrote: Losing booby worm lord makes me sad. I'm glad I have him in metal in my display case. Sadly... I'll have to find alternate rules to use him with. His current rules were garbage anyway. Perhaps he can "count as" a keeper of secrets or a slaanesh demon prince.
Aye its a very iconic model and I hope if they ever return to that concept they keep it as was, if anything make the mount bigger (lord atop looks a little top heavy on it and it could do with more tail).
I got one ages ago to convert and only two days ago decided to grab a second - glad I did as I figured they'd vanish but not until Saturday.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I see it differently; I see that the intent is free cities have the mixed races and free peoples is supposed to refer to humans.
GW refers to Free Peoples as a mixture of Humans, Aelves and Dwarves containing the armies of the Free Guilds, Collegiate Arcane, Ironweld Arsenal, Dispossessed, and the various Aelf armies. Free Guilds is a human army dedicated to defending the Free Cities.
auticus wrote: Losing booby worm lord makes me sad. I'm glad I have him in metal in my display case. Sadly... I'll have to find alternate rules to use him with. His current rules were garbage anyway. Perhaps he can "count as" a keeper of secrets or a slaanesh demon prince.
I used him as a marked StD lord on daemonic mount, works well. Actually having rend on the main weapon is a godsend.
Yeah I can see that. I guess the lord on demon mount for StD doesn't excite me when my opponents are taking adepticon lists though, but he is technically nothing more than the lord on demon mount anyway.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I see it differently; I see that the intent is free cities have the mixed races and free peoples is supposed to refer to humans.
GW refers to Free Peoples as a mixture of Humans, Aelves and Dwarves containing the armies of the Free Guilds, Collegiate Arcane, Ironweld Arsenal, Dispossessed, and the various Aelf armies. Free Guilds is a human army dedicated to defending the Free Cities.
I find this both hilarious and sad. The fact that Humans are the only ones that do this can be interpreted to the racism of the humans in those cities or GW not thinking about it. I mean, I would expect that a city for different races would be a part of the Freeguild because it is their city too, but nope.
That image is definitely a new Sylvaneth hero vs Loonboss on Squig!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like to run really durable characters/combos, so I theorized out how I would do Fyreslayers;
-Runefather on 'Droth (General - Iron Will, Trait - Coal-Heart)
-Runesmiter on 'Droth (Artifact - Salamander Cloak, Trait - Ash-Horn, Prayer - Prayer of Ash)
-Battlesmith (Artifact - Nulnsidian Icon)
-Auric Hearthguard x10
The 'Droth characters move around in a 'V' with the battlesmith & aurics behind them. The whole blob is +1 to saves and ignores spells on a 4+. It needs a battalion somewhere in the army for the extra artifact & trait.
The battlesmith has a 3+ save, look out sir and the aurics intercept damage for him on a 4+. The runefather is a 2+ re-roll 1s and reduces rend on incoming attacks by 1. The runesmiter is a 3+ re-roll 1s, a 5+ FnP, and his prayer grants a further +1 to saves.
Not saying this is broken (920 points and needs a battalion somewhere), just a fun theory-craft for running a really durable character blob.
The warscrolls for the chaos lord on foot and daemonic mount is STILL UP. Found them through google, it's the first two links GRAB THEM NOW.
If you are playing with friends, I think they would be more than happy to let you use the warscrolls/old points or perhaps people can convert their own lords. I already downloaded them.
TBH I did not actually use them back when I played Slaanesh because I found the StD versions to better do what I wanted. I am more disappointed by loss of theme and options.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBH I did not actually use them back when I played Slaanesh because I found the StD versions to better do what I wanted. I am more disappointed by loss of theme and options.
Yeah it sucks(still salty, but warscroll recovery eased it), but the nice thing about the command abilities of those two lords is that they affect ALL mortal units. Honestly I will miss the mounted lord, but hey they might be working on a plastic version, could be the reason why they removed our lords.
GW keep mentioning warcry so maybe we might get something through that?
auticus wrote: Warcry is for Warcry though. Something being available for Warcry is not the same aa being usable in AOS proper.
It really depends though on what the long term plan for Warcry is. We've already seen new furies within Warcry which suggests that even if its a stand alone game some or all of its components might well be mainstream. Ergo that its rather like a collection of 4 duel army boxes themed around Chaos mortals. It could also be half and half; some models being mainstream others being like Shadspire releases.
I think the biggest issue with hoping for Warcry to remedy things is scale.
I bought the Shadespire skeletons because they are really cool models and because they were the only new Death models since the release of Age of Sigmar. I had no plans to play Shadespire anytime soon, and since they got a warscroll for AoS you'd think everything worked out just fine. But let's be honest, how far are you going to get with seven skeletons in a game like Age of Sigmar?
I wouldn't particularly enjoy building, painting or playing a unit of 20 or 30 Marauders made up of (probably minor variations of) the same 6 to 8 models. It's better than nothing. The kits will likely be great for the game they are designed for. But upscaling to army size is not something I expect them to achieve in any satisfactory way.
I think of Darkoath the same way. I have the Godsworn Hunt along with both Darkoath characters, all lovely models in their own right. But you can't make an army of that. The Warcry models may have weapon options, at best with with entire arm and head swaps, and that alone will give them an edge over the available Darkoath models. But since they show a lot of skin they'll be pretty much monopose with little variation (not to mention that GW makes many models that could be designed to be multipose monopose for no good reason).
timetowaste85 wrote: Looks like they also cut out the mounted Herald as well. It only exists on foot or chariot.
It was just an upgrade option on the foot herald warscroll that you had to pay points for even if you didn't take.
Automatically Appended Next Post: [quote=auticus 763364 10427669
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like to run really durable characters/combos, so I theorized out how I would do Fyreslayers;
-Runefather on 'Droth (General - Iron Will, Trait - Coal-Heart)
-Runesmiter on 'Droth (Artifact - Salamander Cloak, Trait - Ash-Horn, Prayer - Prayer of Ash)
-Battlesmith (Artifact - Nulnsidian Icon)
-Auric Hearthguard x10
The 'Droth characters move around in a 'V' with the battlesmith & aurics behind them. The whole blob is +1 to saves and ignores spells on a 4+. It needs a battalion somewhere in the army for the extra artifact & trait.
The battlesmith has a 3+ save, look out sir and the aurics intercept damage for him on a 4+. The runefather is a 2+ re-roll 1s and reduces rend on incoming attacks by 1. The runesmiter is a 3+ re-roll 1s, a 5+ FnP, and his prayer grants a further +1 to saves.
Not saying this is broken (920 points and needs a battalion somewhere), just a fun theory-craft for running a really durable character blob.
Try a gryfyred lodge it lets you take 2 extra relics though you must take the set trait and ability, but thats not that much of a bother as it seems designed for character blobs.
auticus wrote: Until we know for sure, warcry is its own thing. Necromunda has yet to be injected into 40k proper as well and thats our closest comparison.
Not really since Necromunda Gangs are not really part of any faction what so ever. The closest you could get would be putting them in Imperial Guard, but even then it would require quite a be reworking to make them fit into the lore since if they were recruited they'd be stripped of their ganger features and given a generic uniform, equipment and rank.
Warcry is using models that are clearly directly usable in a Chaos army within AoS without any modification of lore or aesthetic design of the army. Heck we've got furies appearing and they are a core model already within the range (though the new ones blow the old ones out of the water by miles)
Ok. When they release warcry and give rules for aos ill reconsider my stance. Until then, them robbing slaanesh of mortal followers and going the additional mile of preventing you from using the slaves to darkness models by making the synergy keyword hedonist instead of slaanesh, unlike the other three chaos gods, was a step too far for those of us that are here for the mortal followers of chaos.
Its been almost FOUR years now since aos release and the missing factions. I wish i could fathom the continuous kicking of the bee hive. They had to know what excluding mortals was going to do reaction wise.
The what if warcry speculation does little to allay that. No one knows anything about warcry.
Yeah the rules for the new terrain piece are nifty and very Slaaneshi. I certainly like them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news, squig lovers rejoice! Not only a box set but a great new character model that exudes the same mania all the other new squigs do. I think the only complaint would be it not being available sooner. We know why, but on the upside I would think it's worth waiting a few months in exchange for what is essentially start collecting: squigs.
I'm hoping something was missed and that things that join a SLAANESH army gain hedonist, otherwise the book is merely called Daemons of Slaanesh as the mortals aren't too keen and going BoC is cute, but has to dip daemons to get some extra benefit.
So I have just finished going through the crunch of the battletome in detail, I think it is both better and worse than it initially seems.
The good; this battletome is clearly designed with counter-play in mind. It has an answer for just about every gimmick, a way to counter just about every build. But it struggles to bring all of that at once, forcing builds to choose what they will bring and if it is worth giving up a more conventionally effective option. Going along with the complexity of counter play is units which are mostly straightforward with what they do, meaning the army does not become over-complex to the point of being a pain to play in the practical sense.
The warscrolls have seen some redesign that rounds the army out well. Seeker chariots work conventionally with the added Slaanesh flavor of retreating and charging while hellmowers now function in a 'get stuck in' role that makes them different, and the exalted chariot is the expensive option that does both. Hellstriders now act as less speedy but more durable cavalry and are a straightforward combat unit instead of being really complex in their use.
However, there is an issue I see in the KoS. Up front it seems fine; powerful with a point cost which reflects that. But it has a really strong ability to generate summon points, meaning an army bringing several does not suffer from the low model count that normally counteracts a behemoth-heavy build. They also have the ability to heal a strong amount just from weapon options, and can use spells/artifacts to boost that. This means their summon point generation capacity goes up more in addition to giving them staying power. Combined with bringing in new units I can see keeper-based builds having both strong offense and potent win-by-attrition ability. It is very dangerous from a balance perspective to have an army which does both of these things, and I will be interested if we start to see triple-keeper builds rise to the top of the pack.
Great video from Vince Venturella regarding the AoS preview Q+A. Quite a few details that weren’t in the WHC article:
Noteworthy details for those that can’t/won’t watch the 50 minute vid(in no particular order, going off memory after watching):
1000 point tourney is more indepth then just base AoS rules at 1000 points. Its not just half sized armies.
-
At least 1 more Battletome coming for each Grand Alliancethis year - Huge news!
-
Mercenary rules are not just for narrative play. Its a small narratively driven list of units that are balanced(pointswise) for Matched play. But they were clear its not soup. They expect it not to be a big hit in matched play.
-
Tourney Templates to guide TOs will be in GHB. Thats awesome, just for the sake of uniformity, and to help anyone who is on the fence about running a tourney.
-
They showed the GHB points calculator.
-
Warcry models aren’t monopose! Didn’t think they were, but I was worried.
-
More non-human races will be part of the Chaos warbands.
-
More warbands will be added from non-chaos factions. Thats in addition to the non-chaos warband symbols we saw that will have rules at launch.
-
Chaos Warbands will most likely have “Slaves to Darkness” keyword in AoS.
-
Organized play kits will be sent out, like in Warhammer Underworlds.
-
Developer mentioned that Archaon isn’t idle while Nagash and Sigmar have their Soul War. Make of that what you will.
-
Looncurse stocking issue was a miscalculation in how much they thought they would sell. Didn’t say they’d re-release it, just that they understood the frustration and will endeavor to not make that mistake with new boxed sets moving forward.
-
Looking into selling just cards for Underworlds
-
AoS all factions supported in 2 years is the goal. Schedule is laid out to accomplish that goal, with one caveat: Faction formats may change. Combined factions, re-imagined factions.
-
They know that unsupported factions are holding back a portion of the growth of AoS, so its a serious issue to them.
-
Last bit is Contrast paints, which I tuned out at. I’d rather wait for hands on experience. If there is anything pertinent to AoS after he talks about Contrast paints, put it in the thread!
Does this year General's Handbook'll come in two separated books that you have to buy? Because in the warhammer article the pitched battle profiles are another book. Or phampleft.
Galas wrote: Does this year General's Handbook'll come in two separated books that you have to buy? Because in the warhammer article the pitched battle profiles are another book. Or phampleft.
No, single combined purchase. Reason stated was that there will be stuff that carries over from the main GHB book, and they don’t want those discarded. VV used the 2017 GHB as an example, it has useful stuff that isn’t in 18.
My purely unsubstantiated hope with the separate pamphlet is that it will see revisions, additions and re-releases multiple times a year to adjust points in a more timely manner. I’d happily drop a $5 or $10 on updated points quarterly pamphlet.
Thanks for the bullet points nels! Sounds great on a lot of fronts. How far into the vid do they show the GHB points calculator? If it is just a formula... Well the fan comps that based points solely off formula died off, and for good reason. It would explain a lot.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thanks for the bullet points nels! Sounds great on a lot of fronts. How far into the vid do they show the GHB points calculator? If it is just a formula... Well the fan comps that based points solely off formula died off, and for good reason. It would explain a lot.
VV starts talkiing about the points calculator at around 3;30 into the vid. I kind of glossed over it, as that stuff bores me.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thanks for the bullet points nels! Sounds great on a lot of fronts. How far into the vid do they show the GHB points calculator? If it is just a formula... Well the fan comps that based points solely off formula died off, and for good reason. It would explain a lot.
VV starts talkiing about the points calculator at around 3;30 into the vid. I kind of glossed over it, as that stuff bores me.
Ah, thanks again.
The process he described had an initial formula modified by playtesting, which is good. But I started to get suspicious; it sounded like they gave the impression of going through a lot of iterations and a very deep point-calculating process which I simply cannot reconcile with the results.
You know when Daughters of Khaine came out it reminded me that AoS doesn't really have a vampire faction as such. In fact the vampires its got are sort of to the side of things right now in the game side of things; all rolled in with impressive skeleton models. Heck even the Black Coach has basically been stolen by the bed-sheet ghosts.
So a new updated vampire force would be really neat to see.
That or a return of an undead faction with a distinct north-eastern African influence and constructs.
Overread wrote: You know when Daughters of Khaine came out it reminded me that AoS doesn't really have a vampire faction as such.
Soulblight is actually its own thing with traits, abilities and artefacts but it has indeed been sidelined by Legions. I'm also hoping for a new take on them.
I guess the trick is giving them their own identity.
The flesheating side has been taken by the Flesh Eater Courts (although interestingly both the corpse cart and the zombies have not joined them, which is surprising since they'd fit fantastically with the force).
Meanwhile Death already has an abundance of skeleton and ghost forces that are strong in their own right.
Vampires I'd love to see with a more mortal force, serfs up to knights in terms of humans slaved to vampires; with beasties and epic vampire lords then leading the armed forces. A shift from the past when the armies were mostly filled with skeletons, but it would really fit the lore well considering that lore-wise the Vampires were often shown with castles and whole peoples either enthralled or under generations of vampire servitude.
There is potential for a vampire army of multiple types. Note that "soulblight" is not actually a synonym for "vampire" it is a certain type of them; ghoul kings are also vampires, for example.
I listened to Nick Kyme's audio drama "Imprecations of Daemons" over the weekend.
It was basically "The Exorcist" in AoS. It was enjoyable listening to it as I painted/assembled some Azyrite Ruins in anticipation of Warcry. There's alot of repetition in the dialogue, due to the nature of prayer chants against daemons, but it was a neat story.
Subtle things in the story were well done too, and I like the more intimate/ground level approach. For instance, a family still reeling from the loss of the matriarch fell apart after one of their daughters is raised to the ranks of the Stormcast Eternals, and sets up the "hows and whys" of the main story. The one remaining daughter is devastated, and the father starts to hate SCE and resent Sigmar. It makes one think how common that reaction must be throughout the Mortal Realms and how Sigmar is burning the candle on both ends in some way. Taking all the mortal heroes from the population, which then makes those same mortals more vulnerable in fighting the things that the Stormcast were made to fight against.
Overread wrote: I guess the trick is giving them their own identity.
The flesheating side has been taken by the Flesh Eater Courts (although interestingly both the corpse cart and the zombies have not joined them, which is surprising since they'd fit fantastically with the force).
Meanwhile Death already has an abundance of skeleton and ghost forces that are strong in their own right.
Vampires I'd love to see with a more mortal force, serfs up to knights in terms of humans slaved to vampires; with beasties and epic vampire lords then leading the armed forces. A shift from the past when the armies were mostly filled with skeletons, but it would really fit the lore well considering that lore-wise the Vampires were often shown with castles and whole peoples either enthralled or under generations of vampire servitude.
Agreed - the living serving or working with the dead is a big part of the lore with "promotion" to a vampire often an incentive.
After all Vampires need the living in a way that the Nighthaunts, skeletons and others don't. Nagash wishes all were truly dead and hence under his sway but even he will allow mortals to worship and follow him. Most of the Mortarchs have mortal followers, servants and agents - some more than others......
nels1031 wrote: I listened to Nick Kyme's audio drama "Imprecations of Daemons" over the weekend.
It was basically "The Exorcist" in AoS. It was enjoyable listening to it as I painted/assembled some Azyrite Ruins in anticipation of Warcry. There's alot of repetition in the dialogue, due to the nature of prayer chants against daemons, but it was a neat story.
Subtle things in the story were well done too, and I like the more intimate/ground level approach. For instance, a family still reeling from the loss of the matriarch fell apart after one of their daughters is raised to the ranks of the Stormcast Eternals, and sets up the "hows and whys" of the main story. The one remaining daughter is devastated, and the father starts to hate SCE and resent Sigmar. It makes one think how common that reaction must be throughout the Mortal Realms and how Sigmar is burning the candle on both ends in some way. Taking all the mortal heroes from the population, which then makes those same mortals more vulnerable in fighting the things that the Stormcast were made to fight against.
But doesn't Sigmar takes heroes that are already dead? So... how exactly hes making people more vulnerable?
Galas wrote: But doesn't Sigmar takes heroes that are already dead? So... how exactly hes making people more vulnerable?
Not always. One example, Theuderic/Theuderis a king who never knew defeat as a mortal in Gav Thorpe’s “Warbeast” is struck by lightning right after his most recent victory against Chaos. Right in front of his family, army and subjects, he’s blasted off for Reforging.
nels1031 wrote: I listened to Nick Kyme's audio drama "Imprecations of Daemons" over the weekend.
It was basically "The Exorcist" in AoS. It was enjoyable listening to it as I painted/assembled some Azyrite Ruins in anticipation of Warcry. There's alot of repetition in the dialogue, due to the nature of prayer chants against daemons, but it was a neat story.
Subtle things in the story were well done too, and I like the more intimate/ground level approach. For instance, a family still reeling from the loss of the matriarch fell apart after one of their daughters is raised to the ranks of the Stormcast Eternals, and sets up the "hows and whys" of the main story. The one remaining daughter is devastated, and the father starts to hate SCE and resent Sigmar. It makes one think how common that reaction must be throughout the Mortal Realms and how Sigmar is burning the candle on both ends in some way. Taking all the mortal heroes from the population, which then makes those same mortals more vulnerable in fighting the things that the Stormcast were made to fight against.
But doesn't Sigmar takes heroes that are already dead? So... how exactly hes making people more vulnerable?
Nels is right, he doesn't only take those who are dying or are about to die. He literally can scoop up anyone if he wants to.
From my reading the fluff indicates that most are taken before death and it happening after death is actually a rarity. What is common is being snatched up just before they would die. Anvils of the Heldenhammer might be all people who died though, at the very least a lot of them are.
I think he snatches them right before they die(or sooner) which is why Nagash has such a beef with Sigmar. Sigmar is basically interrupting the process Nagash relies on to bolster his forces.
nels1031 wrote: I listened to Nick Kyme's audio drama "Imprecations of Daemons" over the weekend.
It was basically "The Exorcist" in AoS. It was enjoyable listening to it as I painted/assembled some Azyrite Ruins in anticipation of Warcry. There's alot of repetition in the dialogue, due to the nature of prayer chants against daemons, but it was a neat story.
Subtle things in the story were well done too, and I like the more intimate/ground level approach. For instance, a family still reeling from the loss of the matriarch fell apart after one of their daughters is raised to the ranks of the Stormcast Eternals, and sets up the "hows and whys" of the main story. The one remaining daughter is devastated, and the father starts to hate SCE and resent Sigmar. It makes one think how common that reaction must be throughout the Mortal Realms and how Sigmar is burning the candle on both ends in some way. Taking all the mortal heroes from the population, which then makes those same mortals more vulnerable in fighting the things that the Stormcast were made to fight against.
This is addressed in "Blacktalon; First Mark" too. Good read by the way. When the titular hero meets with a survivor of a human tribe, the survivor despises the Stormcast initially as they hold them responsible for being wiped out. After the Stormcast kick the hell out of some Nurgle forces and leave, the survivors take it out on the mortal tribes, something Neave never considered before that.
nels1031 wrote: I listened to Nick Kyme's audio drama "Imprecations of Daemons" over the weekend.
It was basically "The Exorcist" in AoS. It was enjoyable listening to it as I painted/assembled some Azyrite Ruins in anticipation of Warcry. There's alot of repetition in the dialogue, due to the nature of prayer chants against daemons, but it was a neat story.
Subtle things in the story were well done too, and I like the more intimate/ground level approach. For instance, a family still reeling from the loss of the matriarch fell apart after one of their daughters is raised to the ranks of the Stormcast Eternals, and sets up the "hows and whys" of the main story. The one remaining daughter is devastated, and the father starts to hate SCE and resent Sigmar. It makes one think how common that reaction must be throughout the Mortal Realms and how Sigmar is burning the candle on both ends in some way. Taking all the mortal heroes from the population, which then makes those same mortals more vulnerable in fighting the things that the Stormcast were made to fight against.
This is addressed in "Blacktalon; First Mark" too. Good read by the way. When the titular hero meets with a survivor of a human tribe, the survivor despises the Stormcast initially as they hold them responsible for being wiped out. After the Stormcast kick the hell out of some Nurgle forces and leave, the survivors take it out on the mortal tribes, something Neave never considered before that.
Honestly this brings an interesting perspective because with space marines they are taken as young adults/children, so they have no previous history. Yet stormcast are made up of heroes or those who took up arms, so when your awesome leader/hero is taken from you I can see why that would build resentment and then chaos would swoop in whispering new promises or outright decimates the tribe/people.
It's why Sigmar's dream for the realms will only remain a dream since there are certain nuances he is missing and chaos is exploiting that.
Yeah, that really changes my perception of all the process.
I always tought Sigmar was using souls of dead heroes, or saving people that wast JUST about to die, so basically the same, and giving them a second chance to fight agaisnt chaos.
From Sigmar's perspective what he's doing does not have the perceived drawback--he sees that tribe X is going to be overcome by Chaos whether he takes the hero or not so he is not denying them a chance to survive, he is rescuing their greatest before the inevitable. As gods do, he does not spare much thought for how mortals might perceive this and does not lift a finger to actually explain the matter.
There is also the potential for him to simply be wrong and that the presence of their hero would have saved tribe X. He almost certainly has been wrong at times, but going off how the Age of Chaos went I feel it is safe to say he was generally correct in his assumption, enough that it would be reasonable judgement to say the benefit is well worth the comparatively minor chance of being wrong. Which loops back to no effort being made to actually explain that to mortals.
It has a certain real-world parallel in politicians/leaders doing things to help their constituents but saying 'trust me, this works' instead of actually explaining, garnering resentment when the help is not particularly clear in its effect.
Another aspect is that Sigmar also retreated for 500 years. That's a huge span of time for your patron god to go hiding whilst everything around falls to madness and bloodshed of Chaos (and worse).
I think his Stormcast charging in and saving the day has somewhat smoothed over memories of that, but I think that long lived gods and creatures as well as the steady march of time and generations coupled to Stormcast doing rather extreme things (like slaughtering people madly to prevent infection of chaos spreading etc...) might start to break his hold.
Sigmar didn't draw any lines in the sand when he retreated, he pulled back to his own realm and hid there and that is going to likely breed a lot of contention as the peoples get their heads up; as the front line moves further away and as Stormcast stop being godly heroes and start becoming as scary as the Spanish Inquisition.
There are quite a few leaked images of the Sylvaneth battletome floating around. Spruesandbrews.com has them up at the moment for any interested party.
It's uninspired, lazy, copy-paste trash. Rather than continuing the much more interesting path they took with Martial Memories for Ylthari's Guardians, it's the same wordvomit of "reroll 1 dice" garbage as before.
APPARENTLY they also forgot that they even did a new character with "Free Spirits" as a keyword, given that the warscroll battalion called "Free Spirits" where she would fit in perfectly doesn't even allow for her, instead requiring a frigging Spirit of Durthu.
Not sure who did this book, but I don't want them touching my Wanderers book. Leave them as a frigging app/GA book.
Looks like tons of support for theme builds, which is great. Definitely plentiful ways to cheese out but at least you have to optimize for it rather than just showing up, and it is not the sort of OP stuff AoS players aren't used to already. Disappointing to me is that they did not tone back wyldwood reliance. Regardless the many different theme options and the specific clans being pretty well balanced gives me a positive outlook overall.
Great theme options. A lot of fun builds. I can see the power builds as well.
Wildwoods got toned down a bit as they are tree models now so wont be *as* big as before.
Overall not bad. Nothing jumping out of the book as bent like the trio of op garbage books we all know and love anyway. There might be mega bent build but at least its not screaming off the page as obvious.
After doing some theoretical listbuilding it does seem like listbuilding skill will be a big factor in how well they perform. Points run out real quickly and there are some simple things that can improve any list which people may miss. Some things I noticed:
-Artifact & command trait choice matters a lot. Very few that are simply bad (good job GW) but several that strong and some that are ridiculously so, especially when combo'd properly. For example; a command trait that heals d3 wounds at the end of the hero phase if the general successfully cast any spells combined with an artifact that lets you auto-cast a spell every turn (cannot be unbound). This is one battletome where I could see myself taking battalions I did not care about to get extra artifacts. On the upside this means taking a specialized wargrove (and thus being forced to take their special artifact first) is more of a cost.
-One branchwraith is auto-take for every list. An 80-point hero with a spell that summons a 100-point unit on a 7+. Give her throne of vines as a lore spell and once that goes off she is +2 to cast as long as she doesn't move. So round one cast throne of vines (needs a 5) then spit out 10-man dryad units every round after needing only a 5+ on 2d6.
-10-man dryad units are more or less never-take, because of the above and because revenants fill the minimum battleline role better. Fortunately the horde discount is structured such that both 20 and 30-man are with taking.
-Spite-revs are worth taking now! And fill minimum battleline really well at 60 points.
-Tree-revenants are still best taken at minimum size and nothing else, fortunately with their ability to teleport every round wherever they want (9" minimum as normal) they are great to fill battleline slots with anyways.
-Treelords have come a long way since GHB1 when they were criminally overcosted. Now they seem to have swung the other way, not so much that Sylvaneth will be auto-maxxing on behemoth slots but enough that for an optimizer there needs to a reason not to (which, to be fair, there are a good number of).
-The heartwood artifact to re-roll all hits for kurnoth hunters wholly within 12" seems really cheesy, especially with bow hunters.
-Alarielle & Drycha are still undercosted in my eyes, but I don't know if I would call them full-on OP.
-The battalion selection is pretty solid. Nothing particularly game-breaking (though I would argue lords of the clan is undercosted) and they provide some fun/theme options without anything being 'take me to do better'.
-There are a ton of sub-factions (7!) and there are all really nifty. Seriously this selection makes me want to run a Sylvaneth army. None of them are flat-out bad and none of them are 'the normal army but better' like some of those in other battletomes. GW did an exceedingly good job here and I love it.
Am not sure where this can be asked, so I will ask it here. How open to counts as is AoS. In one of the w40k threads some people show models of khorn AoS models with back packs used as berzerkes. Is the reverse possible, and ok? And if yes which armies are the best to counts as, when using marine models ?
Karol wrote: Am not sure where this can be asked, so I will ask it here. How open to counts as is AoS. In one of the w40k threads some people show models of khorn AoS models with back packs used as berzerkes. Is the reverse possible, and ok? And if yes which armies are the best to counts as, when using marine models ?
I would say it is a bit harder due to the technological additions in 40k. It is usually easier to upgrade rather than downgrade.
However, I think Tyranids could be potentially modified to be some AoS faction
NinthMusketeer wrote: After doing some theoretical listbuilding it does seem like listbuilding skill will be a big factor in how well they perform. Points run out real quickly and there are some simple things that can improve any list which people may miss. Some things I noticed:
-Artifact & command trait choice matters a lot. Very few that are simply bad (good job GW) but several that strong and some that are ridiculously so, especially when combo'd properly. For example; a command trait that heals d3 wounds at the end of the hero phase if the general successfully cast any spells combined with an artifact that lets you auto-cast a spell every turn (cannot be unbound). This is one battletome where I could see myself taking battalions I did not care about to get extra artifacts. On the upside this means taking a specialized wargrove (and thus being forced to take their special artifact first) is more of a cost.
-One branchwraith is auto-take for every list. An 80-point hero with a spell that summons a 100-point unit on a 7+. Give her throne of vines as a lore spell and once that goes off she is +2 to cast as long as she doesn't move. So round one cast throne of vines (needs a 5) then spit out 10-man dryad units every round after needing only a 5+ on 2d6.
-10-man dryad units are more or less never-take, because of the above and because revenants fill the minimum battleline role better. Fortunately the horde discount is structured such that both 20 and 30-man are with taking.
-Spite-revs are worth taking now! And fill minimum battleline really well at 60 points.
-Tree-revenants are still best taken at minimum size and nothing else, fortunately with their ability to teleport every round wherever they want (9" minimum as normal) they are great to fill battleline slots with anyways.
-Treelords have come a long way since GHB1 when they were criminally overcosted. Now they seem to have swung the other way, not so much that Sylvaneth will be auto-maxxing on behemoth slots but enough that for an optimizer there needs to a reason not to (which, to be fair, there are a good number of).
-The heartwood artifact to re-roll all hits for kurnoth hunters wholly within 12" seems really cheesy, especially with bow hunters.
-Alarielle & Drycha are still undercosted in my eyes, but I don't know if I would call them full-on OP.
-The battalion selection is pretty solid. Nothing particularly game-breaking (though I would argue lords of the clan is undercosted) and they provide some fun/theme options without anything being 'take me to do better'.
-There are a ton of sub-factions (7!) and there are all really nifty. Seriously this selection makes me want to run a Sylvaneth army. None of them are flat-out bad and none of them are 'the normal army but better' like some of those in other battletomes. GW did an exceedingly good job here and I love it.
I agree with some of this, but some major standouts for me
-I heavily disagree that Alarielle is still undercosted. She got hit with several nerfs and went up sixty points. She is borderline playable at this point. We will see if the glade benefits and some of the combos people are coming up are worth it, but I honestly think she'll end up staying on the shelf more. At the very least she is borderline, and will require some playtesting.
-Drycha got a bit of a buff and a nerf, but a heavy point increase, so I am borderline on her. I think she is probably a tad too expensive, but in better shape than Alarielle. Jury is still out.
-The Groves open up more playstyles without having the restrictions of battalions, which is great.
-very disappointing about T. Revs. They really missed the mark here in my opinion.
-Very happy about Spite Revs. I know what most of my Looncurse models are going to be!
Overall, I am excited to get the army going, and don't feel my 3 looncurse halves were wasted.
Karol wrote: Am not sure where this can be asked, so I will ask it here. How open to counts as is AoS. In one of the w40k threads some people show models of khorn AoS models with back packs used as berzerkes. Is the reverse possible, and ok? And if yes which armies are the best to counts as, when using marine models ?
I would say it is a bit harder due to the technological additions in 40k. It is usually easier to upgrade rather than downgrade.
However, I think Tyranids could be potentially modified to be some AoS faction
I only say Alarielle is a bit undercosted because she summons in a 200 point unit of choice. So she's effectively 460 and gives you the benefit of being able to summon exactly what you need. I would hesitate to say she's OP, just a stronger option than average. Drycha I would agree but she gets both weapons now instead of one, a big buff. Either way I kind of feel like equal points of treelord would outperform them.
Karol wrote: Am not sure where this can be asked, so I will ask it here. How open to counts as is AoS. In one of the w40k threads some people show models of khorn AoS models with back packs used as berzerkes. Is the reverse possible, and ok? And if yes which armies are the best to counts as, when using marine models ?
I would say it is a bit harder due to the technological additions in 40k. It is usually easier to upgrade rather than downgrade.
However, I think Tyranids could be potentially modified to be some AoS faction
Edit: Also Kroot.
That is sad. Thank you very much .
I did some of my Kurnoth Hunters based on Wraithguard bodies with dryad bits and kurnoth weapons plus some green stuff, as my Sylvaneth army has an heavy Chamon/Egyptian theme going on. There should be an example of it in my gallery. Also used a couple Lhamaens as repeater ballista servants back in the early days of AOS. Had a tought of using a wraithlord as a treeman, or vostroyans as free people allies to Kharadrons too.
Thank you for the examples. Very nice models. I was thinking about maybe trying to do something with my army, but the conversion level need for it to be acceptated is hard to achive for mostly metal models.
Well I guess I can always hope that GW adds not space marines to AoS in the future Seems like the conversion from AoS to w40k is much easier. A guy just slaped backpacks on his guys and they looked okey. My dudes don't have back packs to begin with, being termintors, but I guess there are no units in AoS that look like them.
NinthMusketeer wrote: -The battalion selection is pretty solid. Nothing particularly game-breaking (though I would argue lords of the clan is undercosted) and they provide some fun/theme options without anything being 'take me to do better'.
I feel like the battalion section is woefully inadequate compared to what Sylvaneth had. I suppose the Glades make up for that in a way, but they force a warlord trait/relic onto your force. The battalions themselves are severely overcosted for what they provide with the exception of the Lords of the Clan, as you noted. However, I think LotC is cheap because the cost to unlock it is so prohibitive (800 for the three units and 60 for the battalion).
As for the rest of the book, they increased the overall healing available to the army, but the loss of the 2+ rerollable Ancient/Durthu save is pretty big. Mix that in with the stomp change, and I think the army is definitely less survivable overall initially (though the added heals may even it out).
My biggest gripe is definitely the lack of reliance on the woods. IMO they made it worse by preventing the daisy chain or toe in the 3 inch bubble and making it wholly within 6 inches.
A 2+ rerollable save is a huge negative play experience, so I'll never lament that being removed. Those shouldn't exist anywhere. All that does is further force your army selection down the narrow tube into a tiny fraction of viability.
The equivalent in WHFB is "never take strength 3 troops (the most common troops) because they are worthless".
The wholly within clause game-wide was needed. The daisy chaining "my toenail is within 3" so my whole unit gets this benefit" made positioning a very easy and trivial thing.
At least with wholly within (game wide so everyone has the same limitation) there has to be some more thought in regards to positioning of the models.
auticus wrote: A 2+ rerollable save is a huge negative play experience, so I'll never lament that being removed. Those shouldn't exist anywhere. All that does is further force your army selection down the narrow tube into a tiny fraction of viability.
The equivalent in WHFB is "never take strength 3 troops (the most common troops) because they are worthless".
The wholly within clause game-wide was needed. The daisy chaining "my toenail is within 3" so my whole unit gets this benefit" made positioning a very easy and trivial thing.
At least with wholly within (game wide so everyone has the same limitation) there has to be some more thought in regards to positioning of the models.
I agree with everything you've said, but the point still remains that the army wasn't tearing it up with the old book, and the changes made don't address all of the shortcomings that existed. The ability to finally re-roll some hits is huge, but being directly depending on staying within the immediate vicinity of the trees is going to be a problem going forward. I'm not sure how other folks play with terrain, but my FLGS uses a lot of it, which immediately puts me at a disadvantage because of where I can place my forests. Add on to that, the fact that all armies are getting their own free piece of terrain, and you end up with a board that has no space for tree placement. The new trees seem like they'd be better, but my understanding is they are roughly the same footprint, so that's maybe a side-grade at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, in my experience, battleshock crushes Sylvaneth due to lower battleshock scores on the battleline units. The one piece of terrain that gives immunity should help, but that again forces the army to cluster around a piece of terrain in order to stay on the level. If they had given the army more missile attacks, then all of this would be less of an issue. From a fluff standpoint, I think the army will play to its narrative, but that doesn't really translate to a fun tabletop experience.
I found sylvaneth to be one of those annoying to play in casual mode (mainly because of the trees everywhere) and not very strong at the powergamer level.
I feel they will still be about the same with the new book too but we shall see.
Their current issues will be what most of the middle of the pack books (pretty much every 2.0 book released minus DoK, Skaven, and FeC) have to deal with. They don't do nearly enough damage that the big three do and their durability can't last against those books either.
Until the big-three is addressed, the other books will remain middle of the road and not very good at competitive play, minus a few guys that live and breathe the game tearing it up with any build they put out.
Woods only having a 1" placement restriction is a big buff from the 3" and I think the new kit may be smaller, a huge benefit since you can better place them where you need them. All wizards getting the spell to summon them also helps with that.
Q: Can an artefact of power that has already been depleted (e.g. a ‘once per battle’ artefact that has already been used) be sacrificed at the Fane of Slaanesh?
A: Yes.
Q: Can an artefact of power that has already been depleted (e.g. a ‘once per battle’ artefact that has already been used) be sacrificed at the Fane of Slaanesh?
A: Yes.
A gimmick, sure, but an interesting one.
I agree; one of those times where leaving the exploit in creates more nuanced tactical options than removing it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: -The battalion selection is pretty solid. Nothing particularly game-breaking (though I would argue lords of the clan is undercosted) and they provide some fun/theme options without anything being 'take me to do better'.
I feel like the battalion section is woefully inadequate compared to what Sylvaneth had. I suppose the Glades make up for that in a way, but they force a warlord trait/relic onto your force. The battalions themselves are severely overcosted for what they provide with the exception of the Lords of the Clan, as you noted. However, I think LotC is cheap because the cost to unlock it is so prohibitive (800 for the three units and 60 for the battalion).
As for the rest of the book, they increased the overall healing available to the army, but the loss of the 2+ rerollable Ancient/Durthu save is pretty big. Mix that in with the stomp change, and I think the army is definitely less survivable overall initially (though the added heals may even it out).
My biggest gripe is definitely the lack of reliance on the woods. IMO they made it worse by preventing the daisy chain or toe in the 3 inch bubble and making it wholly within 6 inches.
A few things, I agree that the battalions are really not good, but I don't think they are as needed as before.Previously you pretty much had to get the lower drop so you could place your trees. The new book has several ways to put trees on the battlefield, and they have longer range. The Acorn is better, everyone know has the spawn wyldwood spell which is better, and a once per game TLA spawn is really good. There is also less restriction to putting them on. I think the only reason you will want battalions is because we have a lot of good artifacts.
The glades more than make up for it. Yes, they force an artifact/trait but this is the same thing other armies are doing. Really, there are only a few dud glades, with several being really strong (Witerleaf, Dreadwood, etc)
While it is painful to lose the 2+ rerollable, Durthu did get significantly cheaper, and I actually like the new stomp better. Ensuring that your Treelords swing before whatever they are enganged with is more more valuable than -1 to hit, imo.
So far it feels like this book is big improvement in a lot of ways.
I think there is an understandable tendancy to look at a battalion's benefits, compare to its cost, and make the call from there. But it it more complex than that. Even a battalion that does literally nothing would be worth points because it gives a command point, extra artifact, and more control over deployment drops. That is balanced against the additional cost of needing to meet the requirements. Lords of the Clan, for example, needs a large chunk of points in units and locks in 3 (or if you want the maximum benefit, all 4) of your behemoth slots.
I think that once all the factors are looked at the battalions are worthwhile.
I usually try to got for one Battalion just to get the CP and artifact.
However, to be fair, a lot of the old battalions in older books tend to be gargantuan and unwieldy and often make you wield units you don't even want to wield(like Stormcast for DoK). I think they've improved a bit in the newer books though and I often find myself interested in many battalions, especially when they compliment my army.
Eldarsif wrote: I usually try to got for one Battalion just to get the CP and artifact.
However, to be fair, a lot of the old battalions in older books tend to be gargantuan and unwieldy and often make you wield units you don't even want to wield(like Stormcast for DoK). I think they've improved a bit in the newer books though and I often find myself interested in many battalions, especially when they compliment my army.
Sylvaneth are stuck with the same battalions as they had before, with mandatory Treelords.
That's one of my biggest disappointments with the new book. "Free Spirits" was the perfect place to add the Arch-Revenant, given that she literally has the "Free Spirits" keyword and is said to be representing not just Alarielle but Kurnoth as well. The Household was a good place as well, allowing both Battalions to bump the Treelords to 0-1 rather than 1.
With the focus on Anvils from Forbidden Power, I've dusted off my Vanguard Chamber again...and man, even at 2500 points? Unless you go for 5 man units of Vanguard-Hunters, you're not achieving all 3 of their Battalions.
It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.
That's nice.
It doesn't help people who actually want to play the faction and are put out because for whatever dumb reason they opted to just copy/paste, but hey whatever.
Ghaz wrote: Playtest the battalion with the Arch-revenant and then email GW. Perhaps GW will change it via a FAQ.
Shouldn't have to. They developed the character for this book and it is ridiculous that it wasn't added in.
In any regards, I already did that with the Wild Rider shields and all I got was a crappy reroll save rolls of 1s and a negative to their Movement for my exhaustive work. Not giving them any more free playtesting.
Ghaz wrote: Playtest the battalion with the Arch-revenant and then email GW. Perhaps GW will change it via a FAQ.
Shouldn't have to. They developed the character for this book and it is ridiculous that it wasn't added in.
In any regards, I already did that with the Wild Rider shields and all I got was a crappy reroll save rolls of 1s and a negative to their Movement for my exhaustive work. Not giving them any more free playtesting.
Then just send them an email and ask if the Arch-revenant was omitted by accident.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.
That's nice.
It doesn't help people who actually want to play the faction and are put out because for whatever dumb reason they opted to just copy/paste, but hey whatever.
I think you are being a bit hyperbolic about this whole thing.
Ghaz wrote: Playtest the battalion with the Arch-revenant and then email GW. Perhaps GW will change it via a FAQ.
Shouldn't have to. They developed the character for this book and it is ridiculous that it wasn't added in.
In any regards, I already did that with the Wild Rider shields and all I got was a crappy reroll save rolls of 1s and a negative to their Movement for my exhaustive work. Not giving them any more free playtesting.
Then just send them an email and ask if the Arch-revenant was omitted by accident.
I did. They won't comment on it since the book isn't actually available.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.
That's nice.
It doesn't help people who actually want to play the faction and are put out because for whatever dumb reason they opted to just copy/paste, but hey whatever.
I think you are being a bit hyperbolic about this whole thing.
You're welcome to think so, but all one has to do is compare the leaked Warscroll Battalions to what exists now.
And hell, they took a step backwards by reverting Ylthari's Guardians to the crummy rules that we have now for the Tree-Revenants. Not sure who thought that smooth move was a great idea, but frankly...it wasn't.
Ghaz wrote: Playtest the battalion with the Arch-revenant and then email GW. Perhaps GW will change it via a FAQ.
Shouldn't have to. They developed the character for this book and it is ridiculous that it wasn't added in.
In any regards, I already did that with the Wild Rider shields and all I got was a crappy reroll save rolls of 1s and a negative to their Movement for my exhaustive work. Not giving them any more free playtesting.
Then just send them an email and ask if the Arch-revenant was omitted by accident.
I did. They won't comment on it since the book isn't actually available.
You did send it to the rule feedback email at AOSFAQ@gwplc.com? They never (or at the most very rarely) comment on the emails they receive even if the book is available.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It would have been nice to add the arch-revenant, but changing battalions just for the sake of changing them is something I don't like about battletomes that have done it.
That's nice.
It doesn't help people who actually want to play the faction and are put out because for whatever dumb reason they opted to just copy/paste, but hey whatever.
I think you are being a bit hyperbolic about this whole thing.
You're welcome to think so, but all one has to do is compare the leaked Warscroll Battalions to what exists now.
And hell, they took a step backwards by reverting Ylthari's Guardians to the crummy rules that we have now for the Tree-Revenants. Not sure who thought that smooth move was a great idea, but frankly...it wasn't.
Well, you're acting like a very subjective opinion is objective fact...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, after a actually checking, the battalions have been updated. I am honestly surprised because I got the impression you play Sylvaneth so I trusted you when you said they were the same. It looks like they maintained the core function of the battalions but refined the mechanics to make it smoother; Free Spirits giving auto-runs of a 6 rather than a strange hero-phase-move gimmick, for example.
I have no experience with fantasy or age of sigmar, but a friend of mine has the the majority of two skaven halves from the Island of Blood starter set and he's giving it to me as he doesn't play. If I'm going to have them I may as well play the game.
How good are Skaven from a competitive standpoint and are the contents of Island of Blood a good starting point for a Skaven army in AoS?
Skaven are doing really well at present and the island of battle set gives you some great models to work with. You get some clan rats which are pretty much a mainstay in most skaven forces as battle-line (battleline are troops that you have to take a minimum number of for a legal army - eg at 2K points you need 3 minimum units of battleline troops). You also get new sculpts on the rat ogres, warpfire thrower, pack rats and a clawlord (general) and a warpfire engineer.
So you get a really sold core and the sets sell for a good price on ebay as many of the new plastic sculpts in it have not been released for general sale (because they were mashed in with the high elfs on the same sprues). So that's a really solid starting position.
Get the Battletome for skaven and you can work from there. Skaven are a tough army and have really come into AoS well as they are not fragmented into subgroups (tough they can run them if you want with the tome); and they are also a diverse army. Their only downside is some older sculpts and they still have some in metal.
Skaven are one of the broken power trio (along with flesh eater courts and daughters of khaine). They are a tournament standard right now at least until GHB 2019 potentially makes them pay the proper points for what they do.
Cheers for the responses and it's good to hear it gives me a decent base to work from.
In terms of expanding that core, what could be added to improve the list?
Also, how has the change to round based impacted horde armies? All of these clanrats are on square bases and it feels like they need a movement tray for the sheer number of them. Luckily they haven't been glued to the bases so would it be better to convert them over to round bases for the future?
Convert to the round bases, the square are dead and whilst you "can" use them on square, its better to go round as there are some subtle differences in the rank depths as a result of going round. Also AoS is going round fully and most tournaments/events will require round bases and that will only get stronger as time goes on and the old armies fall ever further out as new gamers filter in and old ones update their armies.
The base size chart for AoS which is up to date for Skaven (in fact thus far I think its only waiting for Slaanesh to get an update from armies with newly released models/battletomes).
As for expansion its kinda hard to say as you can go many ways from the core you've got. More clan rats is likely a must for most; but the getting started set is very good, gives you plague monk rats which are powerful and access to artillery and screaming bells/plague furnaces. It's a box full of skaven fun and solid options.
The Skaven Endless Spells are also good to pick up as they give you some neat and powerful spells to throw at your enemy.
After that it really depends - you could go for bits and pieces and build up a clan army; go for a specific clan like skyre (lots of techno machines); pestilens; moulder. A Verminlord is also a great thing to add plus a really great looking huge model with several variations.
I have still and never will rebase my older models. If you aren't playing in tournaments, its not an issue. However tournaments will require you to rebase, and people that are playing you outside of tournaments but to practice for tournaments will require you to rebase.
auticus wrote: I have still and never will rebase my older models. If you aren't playing in tournaments, its not an issue. However tournaments will require you to rebase, and people that are playing you outside of tournaments but to practice for tournaments will require you to rebase.
You don't need to go that far to make the army tournament friendly. Just put the square bases on top of regular round ones (I use some blu-tack under the square base, it does the work to keep them together while playing), usually the squares fit the round without getting out too much. Or if you don't like the small increase in height, just cut some round shapes of the right diameter in cardbox/plastic card. Use transparent or color it to your base if you want to make it look good on the board.
Get your army checked by the organizers and it works just fine. In random play, most of the players won't have anything to say if they see you're doing your best not to give yourself an unfair advantage.
auticus wrote: I have still and never will rebase my older models. If you aren't playing in tournaments, its not an issue. However tournaments will require you to rebase, and people that are playing you outside of tournaments but to practice for tournaments will require you to rebase.
Aye but as the skaven he's got are not glued to their base the rebasing is really easy - pop them off, clip the base tab and stick them down onto round bases - done.
I can sympathise with those who have creative high detail bases that they've put a lot of time into suddenly faced with having to rebase and those who have huge armies as well. That said I figure rebaisng will happen for more since when they get new models they'll come with the round bases. I think for many its simply a case of a steady change rather than doing it wholesale.
Of course some will never change and in casual local events that's fine, esp if they've no interest going to tornaments and their local scene is happy with it.
Plus as stated some square bases can be easily affixed to round ones; there's also some 3rd party companies making base attachments which glue onto a square base to turn it round (I can't remember what the company name was so I can't link to them)
One Sylvaneth List I've been playing around with involves taking Gnarlroot, putting the Trait on a TLA and the relic for a Branchwraith + Chronomatic Cogs. Use the 3d6 drop lowest spellcasting on the Branchwraith to get the Cogs out, then start summoning more Dryads on the board.
Take a Household Batallion for extra relic, the one that lets you cast another spell and give it to the TLA general. More chances to trigger the healing effect.
A second TLA for more magic and big stomping*
I'm undecided on TLA spells, probably going to go for Verduous Harmony and Regrowth. Not sure what I'll do with the Branchwych...
Take 2 min Spite Rev squads to fill out battle-line with the Tree Rev from the batallion. Then, 3 squads of Kurnoth Hunters.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I also take the Spiteswarm Hive and Gladewyrm, but haven't yet seen if they're any good. I hope they are, they seem cool.
Edit part 2: If I'm reading this right, can the TLA's free Forest summon ability only be used once per game entirely? As in, if you have two TLA's, you can still only use that ability once in total?
One interesting note I took from Gnarlroot, is that it's main ability, the Reroll hit rolls of 1 while you're wholly within 12" of a Gnarlroot Wizard, does not have a "Other" stipulation. Which leads me to believe that Gnarlroot Wizards give themselves reroll 1s to hit, making me think TLA and Drycha in Gnarlroot could be quite nasty.
Has anyone heard anything on the matter of using our old Wyldwood bases for the new Awakened Wyldwood? I can't seem to find anything definitive. I won't be too broken up if I can't use my old ones, since I was lazy and rather than buy many sets, I bought one set and used them as a template to make more out of cheap dollar store plastic board and spray paint.
Overread wrote: I can sympathise with those who have creative high detail bases that they've put a lot of time into suddenly faced with having to rebase and those who have huge armies as well. That said I figure rebaisng will happen for more since when they get new models they'll come with the round bases. I think for many its simply a case of a steady change rather than doing it wholesale.
One thing to consider when you start out is that, as said, round bases are the future and going forward GW is only going to provide round bases with new kits. If you base the core of your army on squares, but then buy new boxes with rounds, you'll end up with mixed bases or have to scare up more squares, or then change the existing squares to rounds. Unless you intend to use the models for other games where you specifically need square base, it's just simpler and the least trouble to go round from the start.
I always use what comes with the model. So all of my new stuff is on the right rounds.
I don't play any other games that require certain bases where my AOS models come in to play (Warlords of Erehwon, SAGA, Ragnarok, Frostgrave all give you a range that you can fit in, and Kings of War you put them on a big movement tray and the individual model bases don't matter)
Only GW games seem to have the fixation on exact model base size plus changing the bases around.
Essentially if I use my slaves to darkness army, dark elf army, or tomb king army, they are 100% on squares. Everything else I have put on rounds that came with the models.
To be fair, outside of old Fantasy GW themselves really don't have a record of defining the right base size. Most of 40k was use whatever base size you think fits, if it's to accommodate a scenic base, so much the better, and if it's really excessive, have the stock base around to use that for reference.
My first Tyranid Warriors had 40mm square bases. My Huggyfex has a 50mm square base. My old Terminators are on 25mm round bases. My old Scout Bikers are on 50mm cavalry bases (square), my new Scout Bikers are on 75mm cavalry bases (long and narrow, but with rounded ends), etc. And I've played all of them long after that type of basing fell out of favor, and nobody ever raised an eyebrow over it.
As i recall even the AoS base size reference was released by popular demand, not because GW actually believed base size matters all that much.
Yeah GW themselves don't really care about base size.
The GW community however, more specifically the very competitiive elements of the GW community, very much care about that extra 7mm or whatever difference in a 25mm round and a 32mm round.
Its not something I have ever once encountered in other games where people want you to destroy your bases to put them onto a different base. (or blue tack your entire collection onto another set of bases). But I also note the hyper competitive element is largely absent from the other games I play (Kings of War is the caveat, it is 99.99% the hyper tournament guys from whfb days, but the system doesn't require you to destroy your bases, you can just put them on movement trays and the trays are what matter)
The GW community however, more specifically the very competitiive elements of the GW community, very much care about that extra 7mm or whatever difference in a 25mm round and a 32mm round.
They care because it has an impact in game rules in AoS. For example, 25 mm round base models can fight on two ranks with a melee range of 1', while they can't if they are on 32 mm round base. When they use squares, you can have an advantage by having your bases take less space than their round counterparts, which is why people in tournaments don't like when you play with your square bases.for AoS. In 40k, the way they count models able to fight in melee has a complete different mecanism and having 25 mm or 32 mm isn't as important as in AoS. That's why there are still people playing Space Marines on 25 mm bases rather than the new 32 mm format. There is a small difference in game, sure, but it's not a breaking one like in AoS. Fact that AoS is also way more focused on melee fights doesn't help.
Others games use different rules, so it's no wonder people care more or less depending of those. In Kings of War, try to use different regiment bases than the standard ones in the rules - it will get on some people's nerves, generally leaning towards the competitive scene, because it directly impacts on the rules themselves. It's especially true for monsters, since they are more varied in size.
They can have an impact in both SAGA and Warlords as well. Smaller bases mean I can get more guys in contact and larger bases mean I can block line of sight and occupy table space better. Same as in frostgrave or ragnarok. I've also been playing Kings of War for many years, and I have various monsters on various base sizes, and I've managed to play many games without having someone flip a table on me.
I've been using original bases in AOS since inception of AOS. As have my opponents. I haven't noticed the difference to be so bad that I demand they rebase because they are going to get a few extra attacks on me.
Because it doesn't matter that much to me. My smaller based demons on 25mm rounds (the ones they were on forever) also cannot hold as much table space for objective claiming, which is a pretty stout downside in exchange for the handful of extra attacks I may be able to get. Smaller bases also give up some speed since a larger base covers more table space and can get closer faster. They are all minor enough for me to consider to all come out in the wash.
The only people that really seem to care (that I see) are the very competitive people that have a lot of emotional baggage tied to winning and losing, or their tournament standings. The caveat being people that intentionally base smaller for an advantage. Those people do create a negative experience because they are gaming the game. However, for the casual people or narratiive people that understand others not wanting to destroy bases, and when everyone is following the same expectations, allowing people to use the base that their model came with is acceptable.
People preparing for a tournament should be happy to be getting a tougher challenge from their opponents as it will make them a better player They should let everyone play with smaller bases.
(I still think the choice to make base size matter when they were changing the bases for all the models was a deeply obnoxious one, indicative of a design team that is either incompetent or unpleasant. )
Sales. Even small. Forces people to either rebase or to buy new models to be able to play in events.
I will also add I have had two boxes now come with wrong bases that I did not realize until after the fact. I have a bunch of blood warriors on 25mm bases because the first box I got for AOS had mostly all 25mm bases, and was only told a few months after my blood warriors were cheating on smaller bases before I realized anything.
I also had a "new" box of plague bearers come with 25mm rounds. This was last year, well after they had been reboxed with 32s.
Yeah forgot about those. They are in a corner of my model workshop in their box still. I will likely use them as-is because I use them with the base they come with. They will look weird with the diaz ones I have though.
Wouldn't it be easier to just get some proper bases from a 3rd party for next to nothing in cost and assemble them?
Also I'm not a hyper competitive player and yet I prefer correct base sizes because it presents as close to a fair game as one can get with the published rules.
Also you're forgetting Warmachine/Hordes where the base size is not only important, but also has markings for front/back and arc weapons on large models.
The correct base is important, its just most games don't change them ever so its "what comes in the box". Warhammer is broadly similar, but things got messy with AoS because of the management change to the whole franchise.
Overread wrote: Wouldn't it be easier to just get some proper bases from a 3rd party for next to nothing in cost and assemble them?
Indeed if you intend to play very regularly on a competitive level.
I use that system with different bases for one of my armies, goblins, that were set on squares because they were intended first for Warhammer Battle, then went to Kings of War and I had that stone slabs style with custom plastic cards I like to use on all their bases (simpler to apply on square bases). So I didn't want to destroy all of my converted bases to go with round bases. Since now I use this army for different rule settings and shift to a different base when the rules need it.
For Saga, indeed, it doesn't matter as much - Age of Magic is fun! Though with Saga, the place where individual miniatures are don't really matter for close combat - once one model of the unit is in base contact, all the other fight, no matter if they're in contact or not. So it's completely different with AoS on that matter, and that is why players aren't too picky with the base you choose to use.
Though I already had a small discussion about wheter 32 mm round bases are actually legal in Saga for infantry, since the limit is normally 30 mm in the rules. Nothing really annoying, but even there you can find some people caring about a difference of 2 mm. I was the one saying it doesn't really matter if it's 32 mm instead of 30.
Overread wrote: Wouldn't it be easier to just get some proper bases from a 3rd party for next to nothing in cost and assemble them?
Also I'm not a hyper competitive player and yet I prefer correct base sizes because it presents as close to a fair game as one can get with the published rules.
Also you're forgetting Warmachine/Hordes where the base size is not only important, but also has markings for front/back and arc weapons on large models.
The correct base is important, its just most games don't change them ever so its "what comes in the box". Warhammer is broadly similar, but things got messy with AoS because of the management change to the whole franchise.
Few things.
1) the game is by far not fair, so being strict on my bases to give me some illusion of more fair is like taking a leak into a lake and thinking it is affecting the water level. When I can have off the chain summoning and mortal wound spamming and flesh eater court teabagging going on, making sure my legacy demons are on 32s instead of 25s seems banal.
2) Because GW has a precedent for changing bases whenever they want, I will not buy into that. The same for why I don't chase around the meta and buy new models whenever the ghb drops so I can stay competitive. Even if its "not that much", I have a zero tolerance for having to modify my collection to make it "legal" whenever the company decides hey its time to change the base. Because no other game I play has me do that either. I don't play competitively. I play to write stories and play campaigns and hang out with people I want to hang out with.
I've already highlighted why I think a 25mm round vs a 32mm round in AOS is trivial and how it has both positive and negative impact on using it. I've been playing this way for four years now with AOS and have had no problems with it short of hyper competitive players getting angry when they slip into our campaign that my plague bearers might have had 3 extra attacks then they should have, which did nothing anyway because plague bearers.
If I thought it made an actual real difference in how I played, I'd consider it. I don't go out of my way to not base models on the bases they are provided with, so all of my new stuff minus a box of daemonettes (they came with 32s) and plague bearers (they came with 25s) is "legal" (for now until GW decides to move infantry up to 40mm bases in the near future with theiir scale creep).
I think we put too much emphasis on just how trivial that 25 -> 32mm base really is. In the ultra of competitive play, I'd agree with you. However I have no interest in playing at that level anymore. I did that for 10+ years and had my fill.
Indeed if you intend to play very regularly on a competitive level.
No argument. If I was going to go play at Adepticon I wouldn't expect to be able to field a lot of my collection because its not on proper bases. However, 100% of my games are casual campaign games where we aren't as fixated on who is winning and where there is no internet fame or glory for winning our campaigns, so I don't care to rebase my collection.
If I was going to go to adepticon I'd use a newer force (actually I'd chase the meta down and buy and paint a new army every year to keep up, which I got tired of doing because its expensive, its very time consuming to constantly have to paint, and I have to have an emotional investment in my faction, which for AOS I've had none for any of the power trios that have rotated over the past few years)
Maybe I am reading too much into this but is this hinting at new unit designations or battlefield roles that might be in the General's Handbook?
I mean a "Champion" is probably a "Hero" and a "Horde" could be a unit of 30 or more models, but what exactly qualifies as an "Elite", a "Guard", or a "Linebraker".
That's pretty much what it looks like to me, Ironclad. The cards look like they're mostly for Open Play, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see new roles on the Pitched Battle Profiles table.
EnTyme wrote: That's pretty much what it looks like to me, Ironclad. The cards look like they're mostly for Open Play, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see new roles on the Pitched Battle Profiles table.
I would say it's more likely that if a unit is a 'Champion', 'Elite', 'Guard' or 'Linebreaker' will be determined by comparing a unit's profile to a chart and the unit gains the keyword(s) that it's profile matches. I could be wrong of course but we should know by this weekend.
Alright I figured this is the best place to ask this. I'm really new to AoS, as I've said before I only just started collecting, and I'm wondering if LoN will face a massive debuff in the coming GHB?
I'm asking this mainly because I do intend to go to tournaments in the future in addition to casual play, but I want to go for fun, not trying to get first place or whatever. I don't want to change out my army though, I'm someone who absolutely loves necromancy and skeletons and the whole aesthetic behind LoN and I'll probably keep them for a long time. I just want to avoid getting absolutely smashed at tournaments and feeling like garbage cause of it.
It's unlikely any army will get "smashed" in the GHB and most of the armies doing really badly at the competitive end have no update battletome.
That said no one knows what is in the GHB but its coming out pretty soon so chances are you won't even have more than the core troops and leaders build and ready to go bfore its out. So if you want to go for them, its very unlikely that they'll be bottom tier.
Joanna9700 wrote: Alright I figured this is the best place to ask this. I'm really new to AoS, as I've said before I only just started collecting, and I'm wondering if LoN will face a massive debuff in the coming GHB?
I'm asking this mainly because I do intend to go to tournaments in the future in addition to casual play, but I want to go for fun, not trying to get first place or whatever. I don't want to change out my army though, I'm someone who absolutely loves necromancy and skeletons and the whole aesthetic behind LoN and I'll probably keep them for a long time. I just want to avoid getting absolutely smashed at tournaments and feeling like garbage cause of it.
Expect some nerfs, but I am not sure about massive. Either way it is only a week and a day until the new GHB so we'll know soon enough.
Overread wrote: It's unlikely any army will get "smashed" in the GHB and most of the armies doing really badly at the competitive end have no update battletome.
That said no one knows what is in the GHB but its coming out pretty soon so chances are you won't even have more than the core troops and leaders build and ready to go bfore its out. So if you want to go for them, its very unlikely that they'll be bottom tier.
Not like I'll be able to afford anything new by the time the GHB comes out anyway, got no income cause no job, recovering from a surgery.
Just want to make sure what I've invested already wouldn't be made F tier, thank y'all for the comments.
auticus wrote: I always use what comes with the model. So all of my new stuff is on the right rounds.
I don't play any other games that require certain bases where my AOS models come in to play (Warlords of Erehwon, SAGA, Ragnarok, Frostgrave all give you a range that you can fit in, and Kings of War you put them on a big movement tray and the individual model bases don't matter)
Only GW games seem to have the fixation on exact model base size plus changing the bases around.
Essentially if I use my slaves to darkness army, dark elf army, or tomb king army, they are 100% on squares. Everything else I have put on rounds that came with the models.
Warmachine, Guild Ball, Infinity, and Batman all use defined base sizes for their models in their games.
My experience is that games that wish to be balanced(whether that happens or not is another matter) aim for fixed base sizes to keep things within parameters.
auticus wrote: I always use what comes with the model. So all of my new stuff is on the right rounds.
I don't play any other games that require certain bases where my AOS models come in to play (Warlords of Erehwon, SAGA, Ragnarok, Frostgrave all give you a range that you can fit in, and Kings of War you put them on a big movement tray and the individual model bases don't matter)
Only GW games seem to have the fixation on exact model base size plus changing the bases around.
Essentially if I use my slaves to darkness army, dark elf army, or tomb king army, they are 100% on squares. Everything else I have put on rounds that came with the models.
Warmachine, Guild Ball, Infinity, and Batman all use defined base sizes for their models in their games.
Warmachine, guild ball, infinity, batman dont change their base sizes on a whim or ship their models on wrong bases or force you to rebase your collection every so often either.
auticus wrote: I always use what comes with the model. So all of my new stuff is on the right rounds.
I don't play any other games that require certain bases where my AOS models come in to play (Warlords of Erehwon, SAGA, Ragnarok, Frostgrave all give you a range that you can fit in, and Kings of War you put them on a big movement tray and the individual model bases don't matter)
Only GW games seem to have the fixation on exact model base size plus changing the bases around.
Essentially if I use my slaves to darkness army, dark elf army, or tomb king army, they are 100% on squares. Everything else I have put on rounds that came with the models.
Warmachine, Guild Ball, Infinity, and Batman all use defined base sizes for their models in their games.
Warmachine, guild ball, infinity, batman dont change their base sizes on a whim or ship their models on wrong bases or force you to rebase your collection every so often either.
In fairness misspacking can happen with any company and most resolve it with a simple email and a photo and no trouble.
As for rebasing GW has only done that, en mass, once really for 40K and AoS. Fantasy to AoS was a big single shift and whilst super annoying, it was also reflecting GW changing the product and system as a whole. 40K its been a bit more messy here and there with the changes I agree, though in general its also been as they've rolled out this new edition of the game, just not as clear cut a change as it was with AoS.
Moving forward I'd not expect GW to make wholesale base size changes going into the new editions beyond now. We might get some where new sculpts shift up the sale - such as where the Chaos Greater Demons have gone from what is basically a prince sized model to being close to a knight sized model. However that's a fair change because the new sculpt is by far and away a lot bigger than the original.
thats fine. Im still not rebasing my older collections. So far to date that hasnt been a huge deal in using them.
40k has had a few rounds of rebasing, starting in the early 2000s when terminators went from 25s and got bigger bases out of the blue (no new sculpts when that happened) and for a couple years this very topic was repeated across forums because people werent rebasing their terminators and no one could force them because gw law was as it is now to use the base supplied with the model.
My main beef with the new bases is it makes the minis not as useable with other systems, which I think is their thinking behind it.
25mm rounds was the standard in tabletop gaming forever, and the smaller squares were another option usually for rank and flank style games. They big 32mm bases are too large in my view, they violate the 1" grid used in lots of games like Dungeons and Dragons, they no longer rank up nicely for KoW, they generally lock me into GW games and take up mroe space on the same models for no reason.
So even when my minis come with 32mm rounds I build them on 25mm ones. Not interested in GW's arrogant attempt to make a new standard for the industry.
Da Boss wrote: My main beef with the new bases is it makes the minis not as useable with other systems, which I think is their thinking behind it.
I don't believe other companies ever figure into what the Design Studio does. The switch to round bases make the miniatures look better and allows them to free up production by ditching all of their square/rectangular bases.
Aye, round bases is fine. But why round bases that are larger than they used to be arbitrarily? 25mm rounds were great, 32mm rounds is a pain in the backside.
Though I disagree that they don't ever think about other companies.
So apparently the new Matched Play rules in GHB2019:
1) Faction Terrain MUST be more than 6" from the edge of the battlefield, 6" from a terrain feature, 3" from an objective. Then they straight up say that it means that it can't be used.
2) Minimum 10 pieces of terrain setup by players alternating. Terrain must have scenery rules used.
3) All spells now used. (Forbidden and Malign)
4) Hidden Agenda's are mandatory. (Diff one each round)
I can see a lot of tournament players unhappy about that, which means they will summarily ignore the parts they feel are "not fair".
I can see tournies having an issue with 2, because they normally set up the boards to not be oppressive, but most tournies have 4 anyways, and i saw most allowing 3.
Da Boss wrote: Aye, round bases is fine. But why round bases that are larger than they used to be arbitrarily? 25mm rounds were great, 32mm rounds is a pain in the backside.
Though I disagree that they don't ever think about other companies.
There's some models that would be too big for a 25mm base and too small for a 40mm base. So they chose a size inbetween that filled the gap.
And no, I truely believe that the Design Studio doesn't take other companies into consideration when they're doing their job. Other elements in Games Workshop might, but not the studio.
They should have kept a better lid on the scale creep I reckon.
You might be right about the studio, they are incredibly unprofessional and bad at their jobs so perhaps they are in a completely isolated bubble, never looking at the rest of the market.
Da Boss wrote: They should have kept a better lid on the scale creep I reckon.
You might be right about the studio, they are incredibly unprofessional and bad at their jobs so perhaps they are in a completely isolated bubble, never looking at the rest of the market.
Quite frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about with regards to "scale creep". That alone isn't a factor as to them switching from 25mm to 32mm.
The Namarti are on 32mm bases. They could easily fit onto 25mm bases...but they'd look awful, as the poses tend to be a bit wider and having crap hanging off the base just looks tacky.
There is definite scale creep with the minis recently, but it is more in the design than anything else. Everyone is a super muscled towering brute, there are no normal sized people any more.
I disagree with you about the 25mm bases looking worse, I think they look better. Not a fan of the new bases whatsoever.
Reckon that is what will keep me from playing AoS, don't want to be accused of modelling for advantage when for me it is a practical and aesthetic thing.
I started in 5th ed whfb. Chaos warriors were on 25mm. Marauders were on 20mm. The demons were on 25mm. Beastmen were on 25mm except for ungors, who were on 20mm.
The greater demons were on the 40mm squares. Of course they are tiny compared to the new ones, and a lot of people won't let you use the old ones because they are smaller scale (even if they were on the right base) because of true LOS issues.
In fairness old to new greater demons is a night and day difference in the models. Plus you can use the old demon models as princes very effectively. They even give you an automatic theme of a marked prince with a totally army specific appearance.
Overread wrote: In fairness old to new greater demons is a night and day difference in the models. Plus you can use the old demon models as princes very effectively. They even give you an automatic theme of a marked prince with a totally army specific appearance.
I would say that the new Greater Daemons actually look... greater.
The original Greater Demons were based on Dungeons and Dragons demon types (except the Great Unclean one, but the Bloodthirster -> Balrog/Balor, Keeper of Secrets -> Glabrezu, Lord of Change -> Vrock). The size made more sense back then. By now, GW greater demons have a much clearer identity of their own, and the larger scale makes more sense I suppose. It is still scale creep, but I somehow don't mind it because it is a case where the models now represent my excited imagination from reading about them in the 2nd Edition Codex Imperialis.
It was also a practical limit based on materials and technology of the time that GW had. The original models were all in solid metal, which puts limits on the pose and size when taking into account pricing and shipping. The current models we have would be prohibitively expensive in solid metal - even though the moulds would be cheaper, the material cost would be higher, the shipping much higher and the overall build much more difficult.
Not impossible, just not as attractive to most gamers and very epxensive. Back then I think we topped out with £35 or so dragons and dreadnoughts as the top prices. So jumping up to the £100 and more for Forgeworld at the time was a BIG leap. Plus GW itself wasn't pushing models that expensive nor as big.
Fastforward to today and GW can make those knight sized models in house, can price them up and the market does buy them and wants them. It's why we've got bigger dragons, bigger greater demons and the like. I also agree it lets them fit the lore of the game closer as well; the greater demon models of old were kinda small compared to the stories; the current ones are very nicely sized for their epic proportions in the lore.
There is also the point where you look at the models and they are just too damn good to dislike. The Keeper of Secrets, Lord of Change and Great Unclean One all fit into that category for me.
Warmachine, guild ball, infinity, batman dont change their base sizes on a whim or ship their models on wrong bases or force you to rebase your collection every so often either.
Infinity seems to have settled down in 3rd edition, but they've rebased a lot of units (TAGs and motorcycles) from 40 to 55mm bases, and a lot of models that used to be on 25mm bases with sticky-out bits went onto 40mm bases.
Anyway, back to AoS. I'm playing a couple of games again for the first time since Soul Wars was released, using my old High Elves at 1,000 points. Apart from not having a properly legal army (my army is the models from the 8th edition starter plus some additional units; no matter if I use Eldritch Council, Swifthawk Agents or just straight-up Order, I've only got one Battleline unit, and the Guardians of the Dawnspire Battalion isn't in the AoS app) it's been fun. I was especially pleased with the Dragonlord on foot slaughtering a Mighty Lord of Khorne in one round.
Exactly. Matched play is an irrelevance to me, but I'd rather not have to worry about someone complaining about it.
Still, I was slightly handicapping myself in the last game; my highborn Archers unit is 16 elves (because that's what came in the box), so I'm paying for four archers that aren't present. At least I'm getting them painted; I bought those archers, and the Silver Helms, during 6th edition, and only got them painted in time for AoS 2nd edition. For my sanity, any models that aren't pictured on the warscroll no longer count, so I don't have to worry about all those old metal Phoenix Guard, Sword Masters and White Lions taunting me.
I so rarely play matched play. Like I think less than five games outside of events and a single two day tournament. So 10 or 11 tops. I play every week and it's almost all lower model count open or narrative.
The new GHB looks so good for what I do with the game. I think I like every part of it. And half of my group is going to get the warcry box for sure and we agreed we'd all paint up the terrain in the same style (together on a club day) so we can do the streets of death/alixia stuff.
Possibly nothing but a fluff hook. But could the ending where the Runefather is presented with a newborn daughter as "his latest heir" be a hint to female Slayers(or at least a special character) in the future?
If contrast works as advertised for flesh tones I might grab a SC box to try them out.
Possibly nothing but a fluff hook. But could the ending where the Runefather is presented with a newborn daughter as "his latest heir" be a hint to female Slayers(or at least a special character) in the future?
If contrast works as advertised for flesh tones I might grab a SC box to try them out.
re the
Spoiler:
female slayer
one of the recent stories had a
Spoiler:
Auric Daughter
IIRC, they also appear to a greater or lesser extent in other stories
Possibly nothing but a fluff hook. But could the ending where the Runefather is presented with a newborn daughter as "his latest heir" be a hint to female Slayers(or at least a special character) in the future?
If contrast works as advertised for flesh tones I might grab a SC box to try them out.
re the
Spoiler:
female slayer
one of the recent stories had a
Spoiler:
Auric Daughter
IIRC, they also appear to a greater or lesser extent in other stories
Yeah, I believe the title was Ashes of Grimnir, which has a Runedaughter go out on a quest to save her Fyrd.
I think an order undead army could be kinda cool make a change to dead=evil anyway.
As for TK hints was there not a bit in malign scocery fluff with the chaos gods all having there view with a 6th figure walking through a desert and saying his time was coming to return?
Tie that in to some of the Nagash fluff and there seems to be strong hints that Morr got away and is not as dead as Nagash believes.
Not sure if anybody else has their spidey-sense tingling, but the fact that gutbusters didn't get any point adjustments kinda feels like they might be seeing a tome soon.
).
but we should know by this weekend.
