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.

 Talys wrote:
To AllSeeingSkink's point, mostly, these guys are designed in the rules to be just one of (like, having 2 Nagash just doesn't work ). But even when that's not the case, I've never really seen a race to cram the board with big giant things. Please keep in mind, I never played WHFB even once, though I own the rules, read them for fun, and have painted a reasonable number of models (though not nearly an army). For me, I never got to the point where I had a finished army to play with, lol.

Which armies are you thinking of though? Most armies can't have a lot of big things and the armies that come to mind which are allowed to do it (like Lizardmen) it is quite common to see, though they usually don't perform well on the table as they're too easy to kill given their points. But most armies you just can't do it anyway. Treemen were rare choices, in a 2000pt game you can only have 1 of them, 2 if you take the Treeman ancient, also the model sucked up until recently. My Orc and Gobbo army I have a Giant and an Arachnarok, I can only take both of them in 2000pt games, it's almost 3000pts before I can take a 2nd Giant.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Talys wrote:
To AllSeeingSkink's point, mostly, these guys are designed in the rules to be just one of (like, having 2 Nagash just doesn't work ). But even when that's not the case, I've never really seen a race to cram the board with big giant things. Please keep in mind, I never played WHFB even once, though I own the rules, read them for fun, and have painted a reasonable number of models (though not nearly an army). For me, I never got to the point where I had a finished army to play with, lol.

Which armies are you thinking of though? Most armies can't have a lot of big things and the armies that come to mind which are allowed to do it (like Lizardmen) it is quite common to see, though they usually don't perform well on the table as they're too easy to kill given their points. But most armies you just can't do it anyway. Treemen were rare choices, in a 2000pt game you can only have 1 of them, 2 if you take the Treeman ancient, also the model sucked up until recently. My Orc and Gobbo army I have a Giant and an Arachnarok, I can only take both of them in 2000pt games, it's almost 3000pts before I can take a 2nd Giant.

If I remember rightly my Skaven got a largeish monster, namely the Abomination many years ago. It was okay as a model but nothing special and the price for it was too high.
We did get some stuff towards the end of the End Times, namely a much needed Verminlord and a new (and quite frankly IMO no where near as good) Thanquol and Boneripper one piece kit but they where..... Well, they where overpriced.

Fantasy has never had such the large abundance of big things as 40K, until the End Times that is and shortly after we got those kits the entire world blew up so no, technically we never actually had the big centre pieces.

For a long time 'big centerpieces' for both games meant Land Raiders or dragons on chariot sized bases.

Knights, riptides and Nagash sized things are all very new.

What AoS needed to be, I think, was the Fantasy version of Space Hulk. Perhaps set against the backdrop of the End Times or even some predicted future. It should have been a familiar setting but with different enough a system to be it's own game. Some thing you could play out of the box and the warscrolls should have been like the old WD articles that gave you rules for non-terminators/stealers. A new, smaller scale game that FB players could get behind and want the box contents for and which just might tempt a few non FB players to take a look.

As for how it's doing here? I don't even know anyone outside of a GW employee that's bought it.

 Talys wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Before I elaborate on this further, allow me to first of all answer this very specific point with just one word - Smaug.


Now, moving on: you haven't seen armies full of those models because GW didn't make them to begin with. If you look back, you'll see that these giant flashy centerpieces came out for 40k just as Fantasy stopped getting as much attention. It's kinda hard to invest on gigantic centerpieces when they.. .don't exist.

Yes, I love him too. But he's not really a WHFB unit, hahaha

Don't dodge the bullet - you know exactly what I mean. It's a Gigantic dragon. It's the very definition of Fantasy.

Fantasy can drive players to buy huge centerpiece models. It's just that GW didn't even bother to try.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Before I elaborate on this further, allow me to first of all answer this very specific point with just one word - Smaug.


Now, moving on: you haven't seen armies full of those models because GW didn't make them to begin with. If you look back, you'll see that these giant flashy centerpieces came out for 40k just as Fantasy stopped getting as much attention. It's kinda hard to invest on gigantic centerpieces when they.. .don't exist.

Yes, I love him too. But he's not really a WHFB unit, hahaha

Don't dodge the bullet - you know exactly what I mean. It's a Gigantic dragon. It's the very definition of Fantasy.

Fantasy can drive players to buy huge centerpiece models. It's just that GW didn't even bother to try.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, my friend.

In Fantasy, you'll have people who buy a Nagash or a Treeman or a Malekith. A LoTR fan might buy a Smaug, sure.

But in 40k, you'll have someone buy 3+ Knight Castigators at $350 each, a half dozen Wraithknights, 5 Imperial Knights, 5+ Hive Tyrants, et cetera... as a part of "standard" army. I mean, nobody would ever buy 3 Smaugs, but the book has *rules* squads of Stormsurges, wraithknights, and "households" of Imperial Knights. It's really gotten to the point where a lot of us are looking at tables larger than 6x4 (8x8, and even the granddaddy of gaming tables, 8x12) just to fit all our awesome stuff.

I think in the world of Fantasy, if there were an appetite to fill the table with ten $200 dragons to each side, GW would be there like a dirty shirt.

That's because units had a rarity in FB, making the use of multiple loopy units more restricted. A very good idea, especially viewed against the lunacy of 40K unit selection.

40K could use some sort of balancing mechanism like that, but they daren't, as they don't have enough players to buy one of all the big stuff now and make a return, they have to try and sell multiples.

It is worth noting that the staunchest defenders of GW on this thread belong to the 'money is no object' school of thought.

The Auld Grump

 Azazelx wrote:
Recently, I've seen quite a few posts talking about how AoS "failed" and so forth in the wake of it's launch, replacing WHFB. My question is whether there's any or much actual hard data for this, or if it's just online speculation? - Especially as the product is still so new and really seemed to capture people's imagination or at least wallets with some lovely new models at a decent price - at least in the starter set box.

I'm not interested in this becoming a partisan bitchfest, or the eternal duelling between knights of black and white, or whether GW killed or saved your dog, but actual information and reasoned discussion.

Easy way to discuss this is to look at Dungeons and Dragons for a comparison. The suckfest evolution preWizards takeover is what this is looking like now. GW thinks that they can tack the name brand on something and everyone jumps on it like fried gold...
Most large scale overinflated upper echelon companies make the same mistake, then they come back around, revamp the original and pull out the "Coke Classic" bit, while they up the price for the pleasure of selling the product that they should have originally produced.

AoS is really hard to wrap around. the fact that they sunk as much, and then posed a large scale statue to try to shill the masses on it speaks even volumes on how unconnected from their customer they really are.

Biggest issue on the game is that you can't really wrap your head around the core concept. It doesn't work as an evolution of Warhammer fantasy...
Had they just kept the same fantasy concept, then added the new rule set, that might have helped the devolution of their market, but as with most things GW, they do not grasp the obvious.

Then the market price? yeah, about that.... You pick up that base game, shill out more for over priced paint, brushes, and then finally get around to the chore that those figures are, yeah, you might get through number 10-15 before you throw in the towel.

My feeling? give them another few months, and we're going to see the evolution of Fantasy 9.0. This one will end up being special unit types that show up as reinforcements/ saviors on the battlefield, ala Space Marines working with the IG/ Imperials.

 Grot 6 wrote:
My feeling? give them another few months, and we're going to see the evolution of Fantasy 9.0. This one will end up being special unit types that show up as reinforcements/ saviors on the battlefield, ala Space Marines working with the IG/ Imperials.

Nah, they'll pull a Microsoft, and go right to 10.....

The Auld Grump

 Azreal13 wrote:
That's because units had a rarity in FB, making the use of multiple loopy units more restricted. A very good idea, especially viewed against the lunacy of 40K unit selection.

There's also the advantage of mechanical units over organic units. It's easier to make two Land Raiders look good sitting next to each other than two dragons, because two identical dragons in identical poses look off, yet reposing the dragon will also look off if it fails to account for how an organic body changes shape as it moves.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
It is worth noting that the staunchest defenders of GW on this thread belong to the 'money is no object' school of thought.

The Auld Grump

Yeah, I half expect them to challenge us to a yacht race to determine whether or not daddy GW buys out the summer camp.

Money is very much an object.

In my experience, AoS appears to be very, very dead. The only product that gets moved is for use as 40k proxies.

That said, Fantasy was pretty much dead too.

Both of these systems are just too expensive. AoS's problem is that it's trying to aim for a demographic that's just as content with much smaller, far cheaper games. The newer art and background/fluff is also thoroughly uninspiring and has none of the hook that WHFB did, that 30 year old IP had power, and GW has increasingly been watering down their background & art, making it look more and more like something you'd see from a videogame or other such IP, losing that "80's metal+medieval Gothica" feel that so defined the visuals of their IP's.

Basically, WHFB priced itself out of playability, and AoS shares largely the same problem while offering largely nothing unique in terms of visuals or setting.

 Talys wrote:
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, my friend.

In Fantasy, you'll have people who buy a Nagash or a Treeman or a Malekith. A LoTR fan might buy a Smaug, sure.

But in 40k, you'll have someone buy 3+ Knight Castigators at $350 each, a half dozen Wraithknights, 5 Imperial Knights, 5+ Hive Tyrants, et cetera... as a part of "standard" army. I mean, nobody would ever buy 3 Smaugs, but the book has *rules* squads of Stormsurges, wraithknights, and "households" of Imperial Knights. It's really gotten to the point where a lot of us are looking at tables larger than 6x4 (8x8, and even the granddaddy of gaming tables, 8x12) just to fit all our awesome stuff.

I think in the world of Fantasy, if there were an appetite to fill the table with ten $200 dragons to each side, GW would be there like a dirty shirt.

Did you miss my earlier post?

The reason it's not done in Fantasy is because it can't be done in Fantasy. There was no point buying 5 Treemen because you couldn't use them. There's no point buying 2 Dragons because they were the mount for a Lord and unless it was a huge game you could only take 1 of them.

WHFB has always had percentage limits, if your big things are Rare choices they can't be more than 25% of your points and you must have at least 25% troops. Even before 7th ed 40k with its Unbound madness, 40k got rid of the % system back in 3rd edition so as long as a unit wasn't limited as 0-1, you could usually take 3 of them at any points level.

But either way I'm not entirely sure why we've gone off on this tangent? Does it matter if people purchase big monsters or not? Often the infantry regiments are even more expensive money wise than the monsters anyway.

To speak rather broadly, Kirby said a few years ago that GW had got fat and lazy, but actually they had become complacent and arrogant.

GW came to believe that people would buy anything they put out, simply because it was from GW, and that anyone complaining was an idiot, a croaker, or just was 'doing it wrong'.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To speak rather broadly, Kirby said a few years ago that GW had got fat and lazy, but actually they had become complacent and arrogant.

GW came to believe that people would buy anything they put out, simply because it was from GW, and that anyone complaining was an idiot, a croaker, or just was 'doing it wrong'.

Isn't that their corporate motto now?

Because you suck and we hate you. - GW

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 oni wrote:
I recall a time when 40K went through a very similar transformation with just as much player revolt - the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition.

I'm betting most of the people here on Dakka are too young to know of such a time, but it happened. 40K players left in droves; it was a dark and uncertain time indeed.

I see the potential in AoS just as saw the potential in 3rd edition 40K.

Let me remind everyone who is old enough to recall and inform the young that the 40K game we all love and enjoy today is only a tweaked version of that very same, so very hated, 3rd edition rules set.

Except that in that case it was a failing 2nd edition getting ousted by a much more successful 3rd edition, with rules that actually made more sense than the rules that they replaced.

And which included army lists so that folks could play their old armies immediately.

Otherwise, yeah, exactly the same situation....

The Auld Grump

Also played through that time. While changing many things mechanically, it's not as if they turned the game setting 180 degrees on it's head like with Age of Sigmar. It all stayed the same universe people loved. Squats and Genestealer cults aside, nearly everything remained pretty status quo.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In my experience, AoS appears to be very, very dead. The only product that gets moved is for use as 40k proxies.

That said, Fantasy was pretty much dead too.

Both of these systems are just too expensive. AoS's problem is that it's trying to aim for a demographic that's just as content with much smaller, far cheaper games. The newer art and background/fluff is also thoroughly uninspiring and has none of the hook that WHFB did, that 30 year old IP had power, and GW has increasingly been watering down their background & art, making it look more and more like something you'd see from a videogame or other such IP, losing that "80's metal+medieval Gothica" feel that so defined the visuals of their IP's.

Basically, WHFB priced itself out of playability, and AoS shares largely the same problem while offering largely nothing unique in terms of visuals or setting.

To a certain extent, I have to disagree - in my local area, Kings of War is doing quite well, and uses armies that are just as large as WHFB.

While most of the folks are using the armies that they have built up over years (in some cases decades) of playing Warhammer, a fair number are investing in new armies - not all of them from Mantic. Some are buying a second army.

Hell, I am considering hitting eBay for Tomb Kings stuff - and I haven't made any GW miniatures purchases in four years. (A terrain purchase is the latest time that I have bought any GW.)

I think the rules are a major reason that the game is failing - though definitely behind the cost of all those darned figures.

It is not just that GW costs too much, it is that the games just aren't anywhere near enjoyable enough to justify that cost.

No matter how many times Kirby calls it a Porsche, it remains a bunch of toy soldiers.

The Auld Grump

2nd to 3rd 40k is much more akin to 5th to 6th WHFB no?

I remember loving the changes from 2nd to 3rd, despite also loving the core 2nd edition ruleset too (I'm a big Necro fan), 3rd edition just made so much more sense when playing a mass battle game.

I embraced AoS when it first came out and will try and stick with it. Today I was reading through my 8th edition Empire army book and was sad for the world we have lost.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In my experience, AoS appears to be very, very dead. The only product that gets moved is for use as 40k proxies.

That said, Fantasy was pretty much dead too.

Both of these systems are just too expensive. AoS's problem is that it's trying to aim for a demographic that's just as content with much smaller, far cheaper games. The newer art and background/fluff is also thoroughly uninspiring and has none of the hook that WHFB did, that 30 year old IP had power, and GW has increasingly been watering down their background & art, making it look more and more like something you'd see from a videogame or other such IP, losing that "80's metal+medieval Gothica" feel that so defined the visuals of their IP's.

Basically, WHFB priced itself out of playability, and AoS shares largely the same problem while offering largely nothing unique in terms of visuals or setting.

To a certain extent, I have to disagree - in my local area, Kings of War is doing quite well, and uses armies that are just as large as WHFB.

While most of the folks are using the armies that they have built up over years (in some cases decades) of playing Warhammer, a fair number are investing in new armies - not all of them from Mantic. Some are buying a second army.

Hell, I am considering hitting eBay for Tomb Kings stuff - and I haven't made any GW miniatures purchases in four years. (A terrain purchase is the latest time that I have bought any GW.)

I think the rules are a major reason that the game is failing - though definitely behind the cost of all those darned figures.

It is not just that GW costs too much, it is that the games just aren't anywhere near enjoyable enough to justify that cost.

No matter how many times Kirby calls it a Porsche, it remains a bunch of toy soldiers.

The Auld Grump

I think a couple of rules really did hose it, some of the more absurd Magic powers and the general ineffectiveness of combat characters, but in general, I found most people were ok with the bulk of the 8E rules, but the cost simply made starting a new army impossible. I don't know anyone that really started into Fantasy that actually completed a 2500pt army after mid 2011 or so. Even now, with people playing KoW, they're buying mantic or getting stuff off of Ebay, not buying anything retail.

I think the bigger issues with the rules were actually from late 7E, the horrific last couple of years with Daemons, Tomb Kings, and Dark Elves really kicked the game in the groin, and while 8E fixed a good deal of that, the cost issues started drying up the new playerbase very soon after.

edit: None of my bees wax.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, my friend.

In Fantasy, you'll have people who buy a Nagash or a Treeman or a Malekith. A LoTR fan might buy a Smaug, sure.

But in 40k, you'll have someone buy 3+ Knight Castigators at $350 each, a half dozen Wraithknights, 5 Imperial Knights, 5+ Hive Tyrants, et cetera... as a part of "standard" army. I mean, nobody would ever buy 3 Smaugs, but the book has *rules* squads of Stormsurges, wraithknights, and "households" of Imperial Knights. It's really gotten to the point where a lot of us are looking at tables larger than 6x4 (8x8, and even the granddaddy of gaming tables, 8x12) just to fit all our awesome stuff.

I think in the world of Fantasy, if there were an appetite to fill the table with ten $200 dragons to each side, GW would be there like a dirty shirt.

Did you miss my earlier post?

The reason it's not done in Fantasy is because it can't be done in Fantasy. There was no point buying 5 Treemen because you couldn't use them. There's no point buying 2 Dragons because they were the mount for a Lord and unless it was a huge game you could only take 1 of them.

WHFB has always had percentage limits, if your big things are Rare choices they can't be more than 25% of your points and you must have at least 25% troops. Even before 7th ed 40k with its Unbound madness, 40k got rid of the % system back in 3rd edition so as long as a unit wasn't limited as 0-1, you could usually take 3 of them at any points level.

But either way I'm not entirely sure why we've gone off on this tangent? Does it matter if people purchase big monsters or not? Often the infantry regiments are even more expensive money wise than the monsters anyway.

This, really. Smaug is used merely to highlight the point that is really just a Gigantic and horribly expensive Dragon that was sold out the moment he popped up. It means Fantasy miniatures (In the broad sense, i don't mean FB miniatures) can sell quite well at that scale.

As I said in the previous post, I am damned sure a lot of Lizardmen players would love to field a dino-only army. Or HE players to field an old Caledor army (Dragon rider galore). Or an Empire Nuln Army featuring only Steam Tanks and the new "Steam Goliath" (My imagination is lacking atm int he name dept, sorry :p) or a DE Karond Kar army with Hydras and Manticores and enslaved Dragons... etc etc etc.

But they can't because GW didn't let them. You can't buy something that isn't being offered to play with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To speak rather broadly, Kirby said a few years ago that GW had got fat and lazy, but actually they had become complacent and arrogant.

GW came to believe that people would buy anything they put out, simply because it was from GW, and that anyone complaining was an idiot, a croaker, or just was 'doing it wrong'.

Isn't that their corporate motto now?

Because you suck and we hate you. - GW

Subscribed. In the meantime on the far side of the world...

I am damned sure a lot of Lizardmen players would love to field a dino-only army.

That is exactly what I am now doing. At the time of me last playing WFB heavily there weren't the plastic dino kits out, so it was a bit of a moot point for me (never been heavily into big metal/resin stuff). By the time the plastic kits came out I wasn't really playing that often and wasn't going to spend money on something that would get fielded even less often than I was playing.

One of the big things to get me back into fantasy was AOS ditching boring army lists and going more for the use the models you want to put your money and time into. There were 3 armies I thought about, 1 could have been done, but only sort of, with WFB army lists, the other 2 not at all. It is the Dino list I am going for and am currently slowly buying and painting up. I'll probably add in some non dino stuff as well going forward, but the fact that the game by default encourages you to play with the models you like and not buy a pile of stuff I can't be even remotely interested in is a big thing for me.

To be fair, I have been wanting to get back into minis (GW ones only though) for a while but not WFB and would probably have looked at KOW instead if AOS hadn't turned up at about the same time. Except they never had the lists for all the GW models, and the last time I played that game having to make up stats for the stuff I did have didn't feel very satisfactory. I haven't looked at what KOW does now in terms of lizards and allowing the all dino army, I'd probably be happy to play that as well if it was a valid army and opponents could handle the round bases. On the other hand KOW was good in many respects but always left me feeling it was a bit bland.

Out of curiosity, Puree, how old are you? What other tabletop wargames have you played? (Genuinely curious, meaning no mockery)

I was under the impression that the AOS rules were supposed to be a 'living' ruleset with constant updates and feedback from players, which could have been a bold move.

Is that still the case, or is it been turned into a steaming pile of gak?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I was under the impression that the AOS rules were supposed to be a 'living' ruleset with constant updates and feedback from players, which could have been a bold move.

Is that still the case, or is it been turned into a steaming pile of gak?

This is what I remember from the early rumors as well. At this point I think it would be pretty easy to fix a few niggling rules issues like clarifying certain sections, natural 1s always fail, and a couple of others.

I remember that too, and of course it is simple to update a PDF. GW did update the rules to correct the bonus victory conditions very quickly. (The victory conditions for outnumbered armies.)

But really, there isn't very much that needs to be clarified or corrected in the rules. (Short of a massive re-write, at any rate.)

Out of curiosity, Puree, how old are you? What other tabletop wargames have you played? (Genuinely curious, meaning no mockery)

I'm closing in on 50, and have forgotten more games than I can remember, been playing wargames of one sort or another since about 10ish (give or take, memory is hazy). At some point I would have played most of the historical rulesets at least once (most as of 30-40 years ago that is) and a few more recent ones. But I'm not really into historical minis much nowadays - although that said I currently really like Maurice but use home made 'counters' for the bases rather than minis. Heard good things about Blucher and am definitely looking forward to Aurelian (i.e over the last year or so Sam Mustafa stuff has interested me a lot).

I tend much more towards board games, tactical, operational or strategic or whatever to be honest (and have a crap load of old AH/SPI/VG games etc as well as newer games from GMT etc), actual mini games I tend to drift into every now and again then drift out of after a binge. Indeed as my dakka profile probably shows I think I have had two previous active periods here with large gaps between and have now come back after another large gap. Whilst I like the look of mini games, I dislike the money and effort that could instead be spent on actually playing. I'm very much into 'games' and not the collect/paint etc. When I do get minis nowadays it has to be minis I really like and feel like the painting etc will not be chore just to fill some mandatory slot.

For the last 30 years board games have been my main historical drug, and when the mini urge strikes it tends to be for fantasy (I include 40k as fantasy BTW). If I do historical type (real minis) stuff I'll leave it to someone else to provide the army.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, my friend.

In Fantasy, you'll have people who buy a Nagash or a Treeman or a Malekith. A LoTR fan might buy a Smaug, sure.

But in 40k, you'll have someone buy 3+ Knight Castigators at $350 each, a half dozen Wraithknights, 5 Imperial Knights, 5+ Hive Tyrants, et cetera... as a part of "standard" army. I mean, nobody would ever buy 3 Smaugs, but the book has *rules* squads of Stormsurges, wraithknights, and "households" of Imperial Knights. It's really gotten to the point where a lot of us are looking at tables larger than 6x4 (8x8, and even the granddaddy of gaming tables, 8x12) just to fit all our awesome stuff.

I think in the world of Fantasy, if there were an appetite to fill the table with ten $200 dragons to each side, GW would be there like a dirty shirt.

Did you miss my earlier post?

The reason it's not done in Fantasy is because it can't be done in Fantasy. There was no point buying 5 Treemen because you couldn't use them. There's no point buying 2 Dragons because they were the mount for a Lord and unless it was a huge game you could only take 1 of them.

WHFB has always had percentage limits, if your big things are Rare choices they can't be more than 25% of your points and you must have at least 25% troops. Even before 7th ed 40k with its Unbound madness, 40k got rid of the % system back in 3rd edition so as long as a unit wasn't limited as 0-1, you could usually take 3 of them at any points level.

But either way I'm not entirely sure why we've gone off on this tangent? Does it matter if people purchase big monsters or not? Often the infantry regiments are even more expensive money wise than the monsters anyway.

This, really. Smaug is used merely to highlight the point that is really just a Gigantic and horribly expensive Dragon that was sold out the moment he popped up. It means Fantasy miniatures (In the broad sense, i don't mean FB miniatures) can sell quite well at that scale.

As I said in the previous post, I am damned sure a lot of Lizardmen players would love to field a dino-only army. Or HE players to field an old Caledor army (Dragon rider galore). Or an Empire Nuln Army featuring only Steam Tanks and the new "Steam Goliath" (My imagination is lacking atm int he name dept, sorry :p) or a DE Karond Kar army with Hydras and Manticores and enslaved Dragons... etc etc etc.

To be fair, there's a reason this wasn't allowed. It makes any semblance of balance very difficult, typically drastically ramps up the scale of the game, and often in general is simply contrary to the background (e.g. there were a fixed, finite, small, and definite number of Steam Tanks within the Empire, and IIRC never used as a massed formation).

40k is having gigantic problems with exactly this. When you can have things like entire armies of Knights, it makes basic infantry rather pointless, and, even more critically, makes the granularity of the rules extremely onerous (e.g. wound allocation and power weapon blade type become somewhat absurd with regards to basic infantry squads in such contexts)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I remember that too, and of course it is simple to update a PDF. GW did update the rules to correct the bonus victory conditions very quickly. (The victory conditions for outnumbered armies.)

But really, there isn't very much that needs to be clarified or corrected in the rules. (Short of a massive re-write, at any rate.)

Pile-ins REALLY need clarification though.