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.

Destruction and Death could use new Grand Alliance rules. Both are simply poor sets of allegiance abilities in terms of effectiveness, and the latter is completely overshadowed by the (IMO) bland decision to let Legions take almost everything and ally in the rest. I don't think there is a single model that can't be in a 2000 point LoN army short of the GK on dragon, so what is the point of Death allegiance even being there? It's a situation that is frustrating to me from a conceptual standpoint.

Citadel Wood kit has just gone "no longer available" on the GW website, as has the sylvanath wildwood set (which was 3 wood kits). No "last chance" its just straight into the no longer category.

If you want them chances are stores and 3rd parties will still have them for a while, but not forever and likely not for long.


However this bodes well as this might mean that the new sets are appearing on the market any time soon!!

 Overread wrote:
Citadel Wood kit has just gone "no longer available" on the GW website, as has the sylvanath wildwood set (which was 3 wood kits). No "last chance" its just straight into the no longer category.

If you want them chances are stores and 3rd parties will still have them for a while, but not forever and likely not for long.


However this bodes well as this might mean that the new sets are appearing on the market any time soon!!

Just managed to get 2 of those pieces for the price of one1. Glad I did.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Destruction and Death could use new Grand Alliance rules. Both are simply poor sets of allegiance abilities in terms of effectiveness, and the latter is completely overshadowed by the (IMO) bland decision to let Legions take almost everything and ally in the rest. I don't think there is a single model that can't be in a 2000 point LoN army short of the GK on dragon, so what is the point of Death allegiance even being there? It's a situation that is frustrating to me from a conceptual standpoint.

As someone just getting into AoS, the way armies are spread across Grand Allegiances really confused me in general. I found it weird that there's a Legions of Nagash book but not, for instance, a Tusks of Gorkamorka or Everchosen of Archaon book.
Order is a veritable shambles because the Aelves are split about 10 different ways on top of an already large GA.
Chaos is a bit bloated but easily grokkable.
Destruction could easily be three books (Ogors, Orruk and Gits) and I have no idea why not.
Death has LoN, NighthauntLoN, FEC...and that's it.

Tbh, if I didn't have a friend basically walking me through the mess of factions, I don't think I'd have enough confidence to start an army and know I wasn't throwing money away.

Phaeron that's the big issue AoS has at present, but it is getting better quickly this year and likely early into next.

I very much agree Destruction could be easily made into 3 forces and 3 battletomes; thus far only Gloomspite has a Battletome for 2.0.

Chaos is actually pretty neat all told, though the GW store could remove the "Creatures of Chaos" tab once they update Slaves (since otherwise everything is either in Beastmen or Slaves/Everchosen). Otherwise whilst its large every army is pretty much sorted out.

Death is complete with battletomes whilst order is indeed an utter mess, esp for the Aelves. It's something many of us really hope GW resolves soon because it does hold people back from getting involved and leaves many involved with big worries about their collections or certain armies.


PS you might find this thread of help: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/773473.page though I've not yet updated it with anything from the 2019 Generals Handbook (but honestly barring point changes I don't think its shifted much around at all) .

Thanks for the explanation. In my case, I just gave my friend some pre-Contrast prerequisites ("Death" and "I love my Necrons but if I have to batch-paint any more infantry I'm going to go insane") and eventually blundered into Gristlegore FEC, so I think i'll be fine .
My second choice was Dark Elves, but as you said, the lack of a coherent ruleset and the general army bloat non-book factions have were all massive turn-offs.

If you ever lean back toward Dark Elves dont' forget Daughters of Khaine are a safe army - one of the first with a 2.0 battletome and with some awesome winged models and the mighty Morathi!

The nice thing about Order and Chaos is that while the allegiance abilities are mediocre the ability to mix & match whatever you want does actually make up for it. Order in particular has Free City rules it can benefit from and a good number of models that support others quite well regardless of faction. Chaos has the Everchosen battalions which are extremely powerful if built around correctly.

I sort of hope GW doesn't address the grand alliances specifically or leaves them to be a more open play feature. I like how AoS has really worked well at avoiding the army soup problems that plague 40K with some forces (Imperials....).

 Overread wrote:
Citadel Wood kit has just gone "no longer available" on the GW website, as has the sylvanath wildwood set (which was 3 wood kits). No "last chance" its just straight into the no longer category.

If you want them chances are stores and 3rd parties will still have them for a while, but not forever and likely not for long.


However this bodes well as this might mean that the new sets are appearing on the market any time soon!!

Most likely reboxing honestly

 Overread wrote:
If you ever lean back toward Dark Elves dont' forget Daughters of Khaine are a safe army - one of the first with a 2.0 battletome and with some awesome winged models and the mighty Morathi!

Darkling Covens are pretty safe as well, what with now having 2 books worth of being in General's Handbook with Allegiance Abilities--and they ally in nicely with DoK.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Overread wrote:
If you ever lean back toward Dark Elves dont' forget Daughters of Khaine are a safe army - one of the first with a 2.0 battletome and with some awesome winged models and the mighty Morathi!

Darkling Covens are pretty safe as well, what with now having 2 books worth of being in General's Handbook with Allegiance Abilities--and they ally in nicely with DoK.

Honestly I'm still not sure about Darklings and some of the others in the GHB. My worry is that they are just reprinting those segments from the last book with a few addendums but not really fleshing them out into a full army. Gw have still not fully played their hand with Aelves. They've a lot of options but we've really no idea what their final choice(s) are. Sadly we likely won't know until around this time next year (by which point I would assume all currently release armies/models will have 2.0 Battletomes).

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Citadel Wood kit has just gone "no longer available" on the GW website, as has the sylvanath wildwood set (which was 3 wood kits). No "last chance" its just straight into the no longer category.

If you want them chances are stores and 3rd parties will still have them for a while, but not forever and likely not for long.


However this bodes well as this might mean that the new sets are appearing on the market any time soon!!

Most likely reboxing honestly

Possibly, but I think the new tree design (three trees that form a circle) is intended to replace the old kit when the Sylvaneth finally get their new tome. Hopefully the old kits being removed from the store means that the delay is almost over.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Citadel Wood kit has just gone "no longer available" on the GW website, as has the sylvanath wildwood set (which was 3 wood kits). No "last chance" its just straight into the no longer category.

If you want them chances are stores and 3rd parties will still have them for a while, but not forever and likely not for long.


However this bodes well as this might mean that the new sets are appearing on the market any time soon!!

Most likely reboxing honestly

Possibly, but I think the new tree design (three trees that form a circle) is intended to replace the old kit when the Sylvaneth finally get their new tome. Hopefully the old kits being removed from the store means that the delay is almost over.

Both the citadel wood and the Slyvaneth 3 pack are still on the Irish version of the website

Also are the new Slyvaneth woods replacing Citadel wood kit? I would've assumed the old kit would stay on as generic terrain.

Not sure. I do know that GW has said you can use either kit as a Sylvaneth Wyldwood.

 nurgle5 wrote:
Also are the new Slyvaneth woods replacing Citadel wood kit? I would've assumed the old kit would stay on as generic terrain.

Yes, the new kit is replacing the old version. The GH actually lists the the Citadel Woods under its terrain section, so it will be available as a generic piece of terrain.

The old version will stay no matter what, its most likely going to be sold as Terrain now and not market to Sylvenath players.

I’d be sorry to see it go too, as it’s a decent set. Hopefully it’s only being repackaged as a generic tree set separate from the Sylvaneth.

Yep, AoS needs to retain more of its generic terrain, even if they are horrible casts. I can't imagine playing on a table that only has faction terrain.

Related question - before the advent of totally-not-faction-models-terrain, how much GW terrain did people buy, as opposed to using cheaper 3rd party terrain?

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Genuine question - before the advent of totally-not-faction-models-terrain, how much GW terrain did people buy, as opposed to using cheaper 3rd party terrain?

Not as much as they do now. Basically GW has found faction terrain actually sells, whilst terrain features they made were just as nice, but were always optional. Heck I recall many a game where you had shoeboxes and sheets over books to represent hills and mountains etc... And home made terrain has always been a big thing, heck GW has published at least one or two books on the subject over the years.

With the faction terrain GW has found a means to sell terrain features to gamers. It's a big reason why many of them have no points cost so that GW can almost ensure a sale per player of a specific army. The bonus is that GW can build on this idea or even retire it without harming gamers because its "terrain" so if your sylvanath wildwood no longer works you can still just use it as a regular wood in games.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Related question - before the advent of totally-not-faction-models-terrain, how much GW terrain did people buy, as opposed to using cheaper 3rd party terrain?

I am one of those people that buys terrain. Have boxes and boxes of 40k terrain. The problem is that the AoS terrain has been expensive from the start, made cheaply, barely fits together, and is generally just unpleasant to work with. I would have loved to get my hands on Dreadhold stuff, but I didn't start playing AoS much until they discontinued that line for the most part, plus the Dreadhold kits were outrageously expensive considering the fact that they were simple kits where pieces barely fit together.

GW has a weird problem with their terrain kit. They make some of their own with numbered pieces and fit together brilliantly. The Sector Munitorum crates and such are a good example of such kits. Then you have the kits that are made cheaply in China and are just atrocious, with no numbering on pieces, and pieces have to be greenstuffed together for a fit. Numinous Occulum is a good example of that. The problem is that they charge similar premium for both types of kit when truth be told, one should be charged a premium and the other one should be closer to dollar store prices.

Depends on the location, ours we can fit 6 larger pieces and easily 6 smaller pieces on 12 tables.

We always played with 6 pieces tho as it was a recommendation from many places (tournaments, events, even GW people in the past). With that said, we still did narrative tables, like all grey terrain, all ice, all death and it was more fun to do that.

We are lucky and had some terrain builders, some wood, pink foam, foam board, and glue all put together in a sturdy way has let them be handle recklessly and still good terrain for many years.


If you are struggling with terrain, for about $30 and 5 hours of work you can fill a table full easily, with 2-3 people working on it, it'll takes only an hour or 2.

The slyvaneth battle tome is pre order next week along with spells and trees.

Community site source. Sorry no link.

linkies

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/07/07/coming-soon-something-for-everyone/

Continuing from the free cities thread:

 auticus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The warcry stuff is nice. Yay new models. I like that.

However not being able to really use a competent army in AOS and having to resort to other factions still sucks.

They aren't another faction; they are StD. I think I get what you mean though. However think of it this way; you can convert marauders to create large units utilizing the Warcry warscrolls. Total War has marauder champions (basically marauders with heavy armor); one could create a unit like that using the Iron Golems warscroll. 280 points for a 40-wound unit with rerollable 4+ armor is a major asset even if it isn't battleline.

I don't think the warcry additions to the StD army makes them really viable when your opponent is rocking the tournament cheese. They are nice models but the core of the army is still putrid and they need better rules all around.

They do, but you should know better than most that saying an army is non-viable against tourney cheese means next to nothing. It's like saying "this hero is non-viable in a 1v1 fight against Archaon". The point is that the new warcry stuff being added to StD isn't much but it is something, and does contain useful tools to improve the army's prospects when utilized.

The core of army is also not nearly as putrid as the core of Nurgle, where their main battleline unit has "putrid" right in the name!

Looking at the warcry stuff, if I wanted to run slaves to darkness, I don't see how I would still not be playing very hard mode, even against our campaign players armies (khorne, fyre slayers, iron jaws, seraphon, legion of nagash, flesh eater court, and skaven).

The only army of our group I wouldn't feel like it was a perpetual uphill battle against would be the tzeentch player.

We need a decent set of allegiance abilities, something to keep up with the summoning flaming garbage, and something that gives the force some offense.

The only really decent unit in the slaves to darkness faction are chaos warriors... and thats for defense which seems inane to me.

Well the first mistake is using the StD allegiance abilities; unless you need the knight/horsemen/chariot battleline go with generic Chaos instead. If enough is marked the same to grab the khorne/tzeentch/nurgle everchosen battalion you can do that too.

If you were ever interested in seeing how the lead designer envisions his AOS and the game:

https://twitter.com/BenJohnson0013/status/1155886166358536197

You don't say. Shocking …