Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Quick question, does it say anywhere that you can't take more than one Named character?

IE can i take 3 Tyrions, 4 teclis's(tecli's?), a couple of Malekiths and 5 Hellebrons? Not that i would, but out of intrest

I havent found anywhere saying you can only take one of each, as it was in 8th ed.

None that I can think of... but the current consensus is that if you do that you are a . Do with this info what you will.

FYI: this question (and something like that) has been asked many times. I recommend searching for Nagash and try to find the AoS related ones. It's also not nice to post threads whose question had been solved before.

Cheers, i figured that was the consensus, but wanted to check. After all this is a fun and balanced game that no one could find fault with...

The Azyr rules Mikhaila put up (if memory serves, they're written by an AoS dev) say only one of each named character. Honestly, unless someone finds better rules, I'd stick with those.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
The Azyr rules Mikhaila put up (if memory serves, they're written by an AoS dev) say only one of each named character. Honestly, unless someone finds better rules, I'd stick with those.

They were NOT written up by an AoS dev. They're just another community attempt to impose a list building mechanic on a new game that doesn't want you to build lists ahead of time. I get that this is important for organized play, but please don't think these homebrew rules are in any way, shape or form official.

It seems like GW's official answer to organized play is going to be to play the scenarios that are being included in their publications.

 Kriswall wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
The Azyr rules Mikhaila put up (if memory serves, they're written by an AoS dev) say only one of each named character. Honestly, unless someone finds better rules, I'd stick with those.

They were NOT written up by an AoS dev. They're just another community attempt to impose a list building mechanic on a new game that doesn't want you to build lists ahead of time. I get that this is important for organized play, but please don't think these homebrew rules are in any way, shape or form official.

It seems like GW's official answer to organized play is going to be to play the scenarios that are being included in their publications.

Look at the last five posts on this page: couple from Mik with a link.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/656093.page

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
The Azyr rules Mikhaila put up (if memory serves, they're written by an AoS dev) say only one of each named character. Honestly, unless someone finds better rules, I'd stick with those.

They were NOT written up by an AoS dev. They're just another community attempt to impose a list building mechanic on a new game that doesn't want you to build lists ahead of time. I get that this is important for organized play, but please don't think these homebrew rules are in any way, shape or form official.

It seems like GW's official answer to organized play is going to be to play the scenarios that are being included in their publications.

Look at the last five posts on this page: couple from Mik with a link.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/656093.page

"Supposedly" from a dev. Sure. Still not in any way, shape or form official. Still seems like GW's answer is to play scenarios and try not to be a jerk.

 Kriswall wrote:
Still seems like GW's answer is to play scenarios and try not to be a jerk.

...because the latter worked so well in every other GW game so far

GW doesn't deliver "answers". AoS is a minimum effort that tries to maximize profit. Noone ever thought a single second about how "good" the game is. By not doing any balance, you simply take out the most demanding task of a game.

Azyr isn't official rules.

They made the rounds everywhere though.. And with copies flowing around everywhere, some people thought they were official, or upcoming, or from a developer, etc. I even had a copy of them sent to me by GW. GW wants to sell models. A lot of people in GW US recognize that they can sell a lot more models if US FLGS sell more models. So while the company may not officially have made a rules set with points and is just putting out scenarios, they also aren't against anyone making a rules set with points. And if that is what sells more models through stores, then they encourage us to do so.

I don't understand the "game doesn't want you to build lists ahead of time"

Why are you so upset if other people work up a points system for playing games? You don't have to play that way if you don't want to.

It's sad enough that all the people praising AoS for allowing people to play scenarios / without points limit seriously needed GW to officially tell them that it's okay. I mean...come on. Really?