Unpopular opinion thread

[EntMan]

3 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

No chaos stormcast yet (and hopefully it'll stay that way).

Except those blessed with being turned into Tzaangors and Chaos Spawn.

But yeah, overall I'd agree that Chaos Stormcast would be a terrible (and lazy) idea.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by EntMan

[lare2]

7 hours ago, Dogmantra said:

Not so much an unpopular opinion as a hot take but I have a feeling that the next Big Bad will be a Stormcast Eternals splinter faction...

I can, unfortunately, totally see this happening. 

[tupavko]

Oh boy you guys did already mention pretty much all of the unpopular opinions but here is my take:

I never got into this AoS vs. WHFB war, nor I understand why is it necessary, however I trully believa that WHFB lore was/is better than AoS, not because of Gods, high-fantasy vs. low fantasy, nor I accept the time variable as a justification, but simply due to the narrative quality.

I do find that nowdays AoS lore tend to be quite naive and childish compared to the narrative we had before. Morals and ethincs in the old lore were never trully settled in WHFB, but in most cases the reader could pick its own side. With AoS especially early AoS (GW corrected its course since then but not fully), GW abbandoned the mittel-european fairytale vibes and moved to a more cartoonish, marvel-ish sterotyped characters and storytelling. We abbandoned to gloomy european characterization of the Grimm Brothers for a more Hollywood style, Michael Bay's CGI-powered special effects. Let me give some examples:

ARCHAON:I believe we can all agree that what makes a great epic story is the villain, and who can claim that title more than the Marshal of the Apocalypse, the Everchosen, the Three Eyed King on his uber-super-overgrown three haded dragon-steed... Well in that description, lays the problem. For those who remeber the old days, Diderich Kaster later to be known as Archaon, was not evil for the sake of evil, but due to Be'lakor's machinations and the fanaticism of the imperial citizens, the brave knight Kaster was shuned, hunted and persecuted until one day he gave up and decided to give the world what the world wanted: the ultimate villain, the monster. Not only he accepted a faith that was unloaded upon him, but he decided he will be the best, the monster the Old World has never seen before. So Archaon was born, a mortal, not a God, refusing any devine power, with such a strong will to refuse and keep under control the 4 gods of chaos, and a man of such moral strenght to let Sigmar at the very end of the World that was to pronounce the words: "If you only had faith, you would have been the true Heldenhammer!". You can read all this in Josh Raynolds saga The Lord of the End Times, a great story a trully dark tale, well written, with some great characters and it really gives you Archaon's perspective. My favorite part is when the narrator tells the story from Archaon's point of view, when he sees all of his friends, and companions fall to the lure of Chaos, and all the boons of the gods are bestoved upon him, yet of all of them, even once his body is sealed within the Armor of Morkar, inside Diedrich Kastner never changes, he remains true to himself before the fall. You can read about his wife Giselle, and his view about the Gods "We will see what will be with the Gods, once all of their shrines and those who worship them burn! I am no ones future! I am the Lord of the End Times!"

Now that's a quote to remember.

Compare that to the new Archaon, basically a Masters of the Universe type of villain, even his title turned so pompous it's rather comical than scary! Marshal of the Apocalypse... 

Other examples? the Von Carsteins or the Blood Knights were made canon in short stories and small paragraphs in the 6th edition army book, yet they became so iconic without any major tome such as the Realmgate Wars or simillar. The elders here might remember the short story in the 6th edition Vampire Counts book, about the Red Duke meeting a young question knight... 1 page, 1 simple page of pure joy. Or the Eshin short story in the Skaven book, or Moulder one etc... Some again might remember the song of Tomas the Wanderer from the Beasts of Chaos book... Nothing to much over the top, yet that small detail trully sold you the idea of the dark monster from the forest. Without reading a single page in the tome, you already knew everything about the rece. 

Throgg the troll king again, is another great example, a character created in a single 15 line paragraph, turned to be the ultimate villain in the Gotrek series. "Kinslayer" is another book I must recommend, Throgg is such a shakespearean tragical villain, so horrible and yet so wise and intelligent carrying the burdain of being the only thinking individual of his entire race, a race he despises and at the same time tries to save from the rest of the world.

Why am I saying all this? Well as much as I might miss Throgg, old Archy, Settra, Malekith, the War of the Beards and so on, I would gladly keep them in my hearth and at the same time continue reading new totally different stories about new characters, or the old ones. Unfortunatelly as much as I accept the new setting, the old guys leaving us and new champions rising to power what I miss, is narrative quality. I miss commitement by the army book authors to present me with an immersive world with cool characters (Nagash being Skeletor) with convincing agendas (Archaon becoming dull )and plausable storyline (Morathi never answering for her wrong deeds) and all of it written with some passion and narrative quality (trademarking weapons, funky and over the top pompous language: basically every new character is the best of the best, yes Katakros I am looking at you, but then there is Kragnos who in terms of narrative reminds me of those memes where the guy is slamming the cylinder shape into a square hole). 

So again: AoS lore is worse to WHFB lore, not due to some inherent characteristic of the setting but mainly due to the narrative quality that has drastically dropped.

[NinthMusketeer]

It's strange because there are more tools than ever to counter alpha strike, and the nature of current matched scenarios with their battle tactics & grand strategies further disfavor alpha strikes as compared to a long-term approach. I don't think I have seen a single alpha-strike list meet anything near abnormal levels of success since third started. They certainly aren't dominating top tournament brackets.

Unless it focuses on shooting and/or magic, that is. Also the lists most favored by double turns existing, and I'm pretty sure there's a correlation there.

End of the day, if I design a list with less drops then my opponent I get to roll in knowing I'm one roll off away from having victory given to me--I don't really see it as 'winning the game' because there wasn't even a game to begin with. Better yet, if my opponent doubles me back on round 2-3 I get to remove an objective to further solidify my lead. And again, this isn't something that requires a high skill threshold to pull off.

[yukishiro1]

2 hours ago, ChaosUndivided said:

If you're getting deleted top of turn 1 your just a bad player. Its very easy to ask things like how far can that guy move and shoot? Or position your units in a way that makes teleports  ineffective. How badly do you need to cast mystic shield before someone punches you? Im not the most savvy expert on every faction but i play several and not one of them relies on buffing before my opponent hits me to stay alive and in the game.

No offense, but this sounds like a comment from someone who iisn't familiar with top-tier competitive lists. You can't hide from 50 Lumineth Sentinels. Assuming you're playing on standard AOS boards (i.e. where LOS blocking is extremely limited), you can't hide from shootcast that port on a 2+ and have 30" range, and you can't hide from Morathi and the Bow-snakes. IJ will get into your army T1 with most of their army with 3-6 units double-moving then charging. Smashcast can port a unit of fulminators and then move and charge afterwards, and it's only going to get worse once the dragons come out because those have a guaranteed T1 flying charge. Tzeentch Archaon will hit you with 6MW from Kairos *and* hit you with a T1 Archaon charge. Etc etc. Seraphon can both cast and shoot off stuff from T1 reliably. Almost all of the top tier lists these days have the ability to hit you very hard from the top of T1, and several of them (i.e. anything with 18"+ ranged attacks and mobility) do it in a way that largely bypass screens, too. In fact what distinguishes top tier competitive lists these days from ones that aren't top-tier is largely whether they have a credible top of T1 alpha strike or not (this doesn't mean they necessarily want to go first every game, mind you, but they have the tools to go first if they end up doing so). They aren't all like this - e.x. SoB don't have a strong alpha - but most top-tier lists do. It's not that they'll delete your entire army, but killing 400-500 points on the top of T1 is totally doable these days, and that's enough of a built-in advantage to wildly skew win rates based on who goes first in the absence of the potential for the player taking second to get a double. 

That doesn't mean there's nothing you can do to mitigate an alpha strike, there definitely is. But a lot of it is very list dependent. I.e. my BoK list actually does pretty well against T1 alpha lists because it has copious screens and pre-game moves to push out the screens, and a few tricks to hide key support pieces from anything but Sentinels as well. But a 50-Sentinel list that comes up against another 50-Sentinel list doesn't really have much option; you roll the 4+ for who goes first and whoever wins that roll has probably an 80% chance to win, and that 20% is because of the potential for a double turn to make up for it. And there are lots of other lists that are more like the Sentinels than like my BoK (which to be clear isn't a top-tier competitive list, it's merely solid). 

Without the potential for a double turn to compensate for the copious advantages going first has in the current game, it's not exaggerating to say you'd see like a 65-70% win rate for the player going first. 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by yukishiro1

[yukishiro1]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

It's strange because there are more tools than ever to counter alpha strike, and the nature of current matched scenarios with their battle tactics & grand strategies further disfavor alpha strikes as compared to a long-term approach.

I don't think this is really true. GSes actively reward lists that table their opponent because tabling will almost always get you a points advantage from the GS differential. Battle tactics and hold one hold more, combined with the smaller maps, mean that on most maps it is a given you'll score max points going first on T1, whereas in 2.0 going first was generally a scoreboard disadvantage. All these changes are pro-alpha strike IMO.

What is anti-alpha strike in 3.0 is the ability to boost saves by 1, or sometimes 2 even before you get a turn, and, against melee, redeploy and/or unleash hell. But the value of these is wildly variable depending on what your opponent is hitting you with, and top-tier competitive lists tend to focus on ranged MW output, something that bypasses every one of these tools, while the top-tier melee lists generally have tools for this as well (e.g. Tzeentch Archaon will just charge you from outside 9 so no redeploy, and he isn't going to care about an unbuffed T1 unleash hell because basically every unit that's good at shooting needs buffs to make it good which you can't put on till your own turn).

Now I think you're right that pure alpha strike lists don't do great in 3.0. But that's not really what we're talking about. Something like 40-50 Sentinels is a top-tier list precisely because it isn't a pure alpha list - it can castle pretty well as well as long as it gets the first turn to get those buffs up - and yet it still has the ability to take out key targets T1 as well. Tzeentch Archaon has staying power from Archaon, pinks, and its summoning engine, but it also starts deleting your army from the top of T1. Most other top lists have this aspect to them as well. They will ruthlessly alpha you, then settle in to win the attrition war because they start out the war 20-25% ahead of their opponent if they go first. The double turn is the only thing that holds this advantage in check right now.

I tend to agree that the game would probably be better without the double turn, but at this point doing that would require rebuilding a lot of the game rules and the mission structure from the ground up. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by yukishiro1

[ChaosUndivided]

@yukishiro1 yeah your argument was totally predictable, of course there is janky outliers. There is like any number of counter points that can be made, most players dont really play hyper skewed list outside tournaments, point changes are due, meta shifts, smart deployment can still minimize the impact. I dunno dude i guess if all you care about is this extreme edge of play go on keep complaining.

[yukishiro1]

I'm not complaining, I'm defending the double turn as necessary to the current state of the game. They aren't janky outliers, the whole point is that many, probably most top-tier competitive lists can hit you hard the top of T1 these days, often with fairly limited ability to mitigate. And we're specifically talking about tournament lists and the current state of the game and the "extreme edge of play."  

That said, I don't want to get this discussion sidetracked even more into the double turn - I think we already know it's the most controversial thing in AOS, and we probably don't need to make this thread all about it, too.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Reinholt]

Gargants should have been giant ants

[Neverchosen]

Oh here is one... I think it is extremely boring to follow the majority of games workshop's colour schemes. I am always disappointed to see people fielding the same schemes. I want to face your army not the one on the box. If I wanted to play a game with a standard scheme I would get into something with pre-painted minis. 

This is not an attack on anyone's schemes as I know you are all likely better painters than I am. I will also be the first to admit that the artists at GW understand colour theory much better than I do. I am aware that for many people the draw is the lore or gameplay and painting is a chore, but I like when people at least use the schemes of other subfactions to add variety. I just love seeing people's takes on things and it is always sad when it is something I have seen countless times. I wish I was better at kitbashing as it would add even more individuality to my models and a well kitbashed army with a unique paint scheme is always a delight. 

In other words, I love that people are able to enjoy the traditional colour schemes but know that for those of you doing your own thing that I appreciate your hard work and creativity! ❤️ 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Neverchosen

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, I always try to do something weird and original with my painting schemes. I'm technically pretty ****** at painting, so if I didn't, I'd just end up with the 997th best painted Sylvaneth army, or whatever, which is sad days. 

[Ggom]

7 hours ago, lare2 said:

I can, unfortunately, totally see this happening. 

It would be pretty cool, to discover that Sigmar is actually a flawed, deeply dislikable character, driven by his own narrow world views, making terrible decisions that ultimately cleave his empire apart into warring factions. There would be a civil war, and eventually the renegade stormcast will turn to chaos and the galaxy will be set in flames as brother fights brother. Eventually Sigmar would be challenged by his his once most loyal son, who, now seeing the failings of his father, resolutely attempts to smite him down, only to fail in the very end, leaving his father a catatonic wreck and himself, dead. The empire endures, but barely, forevermore languishing in an eternity of slow decline, with only the laughter of the chaos gods echoing through the passage of centuries, until, finally, civilaztion is snuffed out and the galaxy plunges into a final dark age of silence.

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

43 minutes ago, Ggom said:

It would be pretty cool, to discover that Sigmar is actually a flawed, deeply dislikable character, driven by his own narrow world views, making terrible decisions that ultimately cleave his empire apart into warring factions. There would be a civil war, and eventually the renegade stormcast will turn to chaos and the galaxy will be set in flames as brother fights brother. Eventually Sigmar would be challenged by his his once most loyal son, who, now seeing the failings of his father, resolutely attempts to smite him down, only to fail in the very end, leaving his father a catatonic wreck and himself, dead. The empire endures, but barely, forevermore languishing in an eternity of slow decline, with only the laughter of the chaos gods echoing through the passage of centuries, until, finally, civilaztion is snuffed out and the galaxy plunges into a final dark age of silence.

Waaaaiiit a minute...

[Maogrim]

Okay, I'm pretty sure that this is unpopular: I really dislike if people constantly change subfactions just to be ahead of the meta and get a slight edge in competitive play. 

I think if you choose a subfaction you don't just choose a set of nice little rules but also a narrative and a history for why your army has these special traits. I do get that choosing a subfaction can be hard and of course it's fine to test in the beginning of your army building process. But you should settle for one eventually. 

[NinthMusketeer]

5 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

I'm not complaining, I'm defending the double turn as necessary to the current state of the game. They aren't janky outliers, the whole point is that many, probably most top-tier competitive lists can hit you hard the top of T1 these days, often with fairly limited ability to mitigate. And we're specifically talking about tournament lists and the current state of the game and the "extreme edge of play." 

The double turn benefits the lists you are talking about more than it does the opposition. Saying random initiative is needed to combat them is literally arguing that to counter these lists the game needs a tool which makes them stronger.

Maybe it's all a meta-comment within the context of the thread...?

[Bosskelot]

Tupavko's post above is a really nice summation of a lot of issues I have with AOS's current lore and presentation.

I personally think that setting should always trump narrative and AOS's obsession with its narrative is going to end up backfiring on it in a major way unless the actual worldbuilding of the setting improves. You can point to all manner of impactful things happening in the recent narrative all you want, but unless I actually care about the consequences it's sort of moot. This is most obvious with maps and how despite GW making a big huzzaw about finally including maps in 2.0-onwards, a lot of them feel exactly what they probably are: slapdash, thrown together and with little actual worldbuilding thought put into them. All I see are placenames placed randomly with no real greater context. Just look at the lower Empire and the River Reik; you can tell a lot about what goes on there on a macro-level with just a little bit of extra outside information and you can also understand that if, say, Nuln was sacked and destroyed how impactful that would be on the Empire as a whole. Same with Blackfire Pass and the Border Princes and the Badlands beyond. You see interconnected areas that, if something happens in one of them, ripples outwards and effects things further up.

In AOS Morathi invaded some Anvilguard or somewhere I guess. Why should I care? Apparently the Lumineth invaded Shyish and fought across most of it, liberating nations and so on. What were they? Who lived there? In a semi-ironic, GRRM-way; what were their tax policies?

Of course under the current way of doing things these are issues AOS is not concerned with. It's all big, bombastic, God-level melodrama and epic setpieces. Which is fine if you enjoy it, but I increasingly do not. It's like a big flashy action scene in a film that really has no narrative or thematic importance; it might be enjoyable to watch in the moment, but it can leave you feeling emotionally unsatisfied or bored if it keeps going on for too long.

[zilberfrid]

11 hours ago, EntMan said:

Except those blessed with being turned into Tzaangors and Chaos Spawn.

But yeah, overall I'd agree that Chaos Stormcast would be a terrible (and lazy) idea.

 

I think that Space Marines and early Stormcast are just Chaos Warrior/Chosen knockoffs, so in a sense we already have them.

[Phasteon]

11 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:

Tupavko's post above is a really nice summation of a lot of issues I have with AOS's current lore and presentation.

I personally think that setting should always trump narrative and AOS's obsession with its narrative is going to end up backfiring on it in a major way unless the actual worldbuilding of the setting improves. You can point to all manner of impactful things happening in the recent narrative all you want, but unless I actually care about the consequences it's sort of moot. This is most obvious with maps and how despite GW making a big huzzaw about finally including maps in 2.0-onwards, a lot of them feel exactly what they probably are: slapdash, thrown together and with little actual worldbuilding thought put into them. All I see are placenames placed randomly with no real greater context. Just look at the lower Empire and the River Reik; you can tell a lot about what goes on there on a macro-level with just a little bit of extra outside information and you can also understand that if, say, Nuln was sacked and destroyed how impactful that would be on the Empire as a whole. Same with Blackfire Pass and the Border Princes and the Badlands beyond. You see interconnected areas that, if something happens in one of them, ripples outwards and effects things further up.

In AOS Morathi invaded some Anvilguard or somewhere I guess. Why should I care? Apparently the Lumineth invaded Shyish and fought across most of it, liberating nations and so on. What were they? Who lived there? In a semi-ironic, GRRM-way; what were their tax policies?

Of course under the current way of doing things these are issues AOS is not concerned with. It's all big, bombastic, God-level melodrama and epic setpieces. Which is fine if you enjoy it, but I increasingly do not. It's like a big flashy action scene in a film that really has no narrative or thematic importance; it might be enjoyable to watch in the moment, but it can leave you feeling emotionally unsatisfied or bored if it keeps going on for too long.

Thats because you never actually cared about AoS lore. 

I played the Firestorm campaign with friends at our LGS for weeks and whenever I see a map of Aqshy I know „Yeah there is the place we fought over!“ or if I see furios peak „Thats where my Vostarg live!“ 

I care for AoS lore and I connect places with stories I read / campaigns I played. 

I to follow your example never deeply cared about WHFB Lore so if you name the river Reik I don‘t care at all.

Just be honest and say that you dont like it and dont want to like it. 

[Enoby]

4 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Just be honest and say that you dont like it and dont want to like it. 

I think this is an unfair take (to say they "don't want to like it"). I don't agree with everything Bosskelot said, but I do agree that the world building of AoS is sparse - I disagree that it's quite as sparse as they're suggesting (for example Anvilguard has been at least a bit fleshed out), but a lot of the places on the map just have no history behind them. That's likely the point - so someone can make their own history - but it doesn't really do much to flesh out the world in an official sense.

I say this as someone who has read the Realmgate Wars saga (both the Black Library books and campaign books), and never played Fantasy.

I couldn't tell you anything about 'The Crystal Henge'. I have no clue why it's there, what it does, who it belongs to (if anyone), and if anyone lives there. I'd assume no humans as it's on the 'Unreachable Mountain' next to a big sea of green and lava islands. But then there's a castle called "Hengegate" which would suggest that it's important enough to guard (or at least was at some point). 

Even Asphyxia, which was closer to the plot, isn't much more than a fiery wasteland. Khorne Bloodbound live there, but I have no clue what they eat (each other maybe? But then how are there any of them left) or why anyone would care to control a fiery wasteland.

Now, there are definitely some places where AoS has expanded its lore and that's great. But there are still a lot of half (or not) explained places in AoS put on a map to make the area look like it has history without actually writing that history.

Again, I imagine this is partially for people to make their own homebrew and get people's imagination going. But personally I prefer to just use a totally make believe homebrew place (which AoS is great at facilitating unlike WHFB) and build my own history, rather than using a half formed idea that could be developed on in the future and thus erasing my homebrew. 

In Fantasy, something I have no previous connection to, you can point at a place on the map and say "that's there for X reason, and here's its history". Which comes at the cost of being a very restrictive setting for wargaming (the reason I personally prefer AoS), but a generally more interesting setting to read about.

[EMMachine]

18 hours ago, Dogmantra said:

I think that there is room for an extremist Stormcast splinter faction to exist in the narrative alongside Chaos. Canonically, at least one Stormhost (Hallwoed Knights?) has already done some major purges that went just a little bit too far. I think you could definitely get a contrast between ideologies that would make it interesting.

Most likely you mean the "Knights Excelior".

13 hours ago, Phasteon said:

If you want to play matched play 2k points with min. 3 battlelines and all other restriction you‘re „queuing“ for a competitive game. 

If you want to be fluffy or casual go and play open play missions / battleplans from battletomes. 

Don‘t be mad about someone playing a „more effective“ list in a „casual game“ when it‘s your own responsibility. 

That's not entirely true. Their are some cases where the "more effective" list is actually breaking the lore (multiple Frostlords or multiple Abhorrant Archregents). It is one thing if you lose against list that is fitting some way the lore of the faction or if the list is ignoring the lore completly and is only including the strongest stuff possible.
 

On 10/15/2021 at 11:21 AM, Dankboss said:

Specific army centerpieces such as high leader units should be limited to 1 per army depending on context. It makes no sense that my army can field 2+ Freeguild GENERALS, Frostlords, Megabosses, Abhorrent Ghoul KINGS etc etc. That's not how power structures work in a functional army. It would also curb spamming. At least give sub-commander options like the Drakesworn Templar to his Lord Celestant on Stardrake. I know this is a high fantasy game but please let's just have some reality to bring it together...

GW letting us build armies of all dragons is a mistake and only encourages spam. How many times have we seen a new army drop and the article tell you you can build a whole army of (insert efficient monster/ elite unit here)? The game is better when most army composition actually looks like an 'army' and not 3 Frostlords and the extras tacked on. Armies composed of a couple powerful monsters is infantile and lazy, making it look like I'm smashing my Transformers into your plastic soldiers. I know we're playing a game with models but there is nuance here. Sons of Behemat get a pass. Let's not pretend these armies are the thematic force of a steam tank company and their support, they're pick 3+ of the smashiest monster and throw it at your opponents face overarm. And this isn't even a 3.0 problem.

GW's insistence on complete flexibility and freedom is detrimental to the game as it's open to abuse.

Sorry not sorry.

Not sure about the Ghoul King in the mentioning above because a Flesh-Eater Court can have multiple, Ghoul Kings being the Royal Family, the Abhorrant Archregent is the real model that should be restricted in that case, but I can see that a court could be more focused around the Courtiers. It's the same with Auric Runefathers or Auric Runemasters each lodge normally having only one.

My own point of "Unpopular Opinion" is "Unique" and "Named Character" is basicly still the same thing in the rules. It fits with the things @Dankboss said. We are missing a ruling in the Pitched battle Profiles that say that a model should only be once in the list without the restriction for command traits, Artefacts etc. This would fix the Problem @Dankboss mentioned and wouldn't give us the strange situation we had with the Scinari Loreseeker in 2.0 and again in 3.0 after the Errata. With making him unique GW is basicly stating that the whole civilisation of the Lumineth Realmlords only has 1 Loreseeker in all the realms together because of giving him the same ruling as a named Charakter while it was more likely that they simply wanted that only one model of those is in the list.

 

Another "Unpopular Opinion", putting "Battleline if" behind a subfaction if that subfaction isn't the only faction using that strategy.

Stuff like Dracothian Guard units only in Hammers of Sigmar Armies or Paladins only in Knights Excelsior. The thing is their are Extremis Chambers in other Stormhosts as well as Exemplar Chambers but rulewise we are forced to take a specific stormhost to play those specific chambers, at least in matched play.

[Kaleydoscope]

Unpopular opinion: 

Moving after Translocation for one (1!) unit was fine and should not have been nerfed. Even more so since countless players asked if movement was intended after the first faq, the second faq, and the new battletome. Changing celestial menagerie and cycle of the storm was unnecessary as well (to state how the latter works would have sufficed) but doing both together with translocation really makes me angry. Sorry, but even I have to vent now. All that withouth publishing a faq but rather updating the app which is not up-to-date for everyone (several people reported this change but me and others cannot see these changes in the app or on warhammer community). Thank you GW for yet again communicating badly -.-

I would have liked to at least play a single game with movement after translocation in my group where you meet hard hitting tournament lists most of the time which of course shield their valuable units with chaff and thus mitigate this teleport anyway.

Unpopular opinion (?): I like this thread and think it does not impact the forum's positivity policy negatively.

[Maogrim]

I have another one concerning lore, and specifically those who are clamoring for Morathi (-Khaine) to 'get her comeuppance'. 

Yes, she seemimgly does a lot for her own gaines, but she truly and deeply hates Chaos. She was instrumental in binding Slaanesh and happily sends her troops to fight Chaos whenever and wherever. Sigmar can certainly not count on Malerion in that regard, because the boy is too busy with stalking the Lumineth and sl@tshaming his mother. 

Yes, Morathi sacrificed an army of Stormcast Eternals in the Eight Points, but her plan of throwing a wrench into Archaon's Varanite production was sucessful. Yes, she usurpt Anvilguard but was also crucial in rescuing Excelsis from Kragnos. 

The way I see it Morathi is still proving too important as an ally, and it seems that Grungni agrees with me. And she's also just plain fantastic.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

54 minutes ago, Kaleydoscope said:

Moving after Translocation for one (1!) unit was fine and should not have been nerfed.

I don't even think that's unpopular. Although I suspect it was changed for non-balance reasons anyway.

[Kaleb Daark]

1 hour ago, Maogrim said:

I have another one concerning lore, and specifically those who are clamoring for Morathi (-Khaine) to 'get her comeuppance'. 

Yes, she seemimgly does a lot for her own gaines, but she truly and deeply hates Chaos. She was instrumental in binding Slaanesh and happily sends her troops to fight Chaos whenever and wherever. Sigmar can certainly not count on Malerion in that regard, because the boy is too busy with stalking the Lumineth and sl@tshaming his mother. 

Yes, Morathi sacrificed an army of Stormcast Eternals in the Eight Points, but her plan of throwing a wrench into Archaon's Varanite production was sucessful. Yes, she usurpt Anvilguard but was also crucial in rescuing Excelsis from Kragnos. 

The way I see it Morathi is still proving too important as an ally, and it seems that Grungni agrees with me. And she's also just plain fantastic.

problem is that she's still an elf.  And elf is as elf does as Forest Gaempunkin says.

[Kaleb Daark]

I'd have to agree about the AoS lore insofar that it's all a bit 30 minute cartoon slot.

However, that said we didn't really see much develop in the old world until 3rd edition, as before then you really only got the odd snippets of story with the regiments of renown and some white dwarfs bits, oh of course and the scenario packs like Terror of the Lichmaster, MacDeath, Bloodbath at Orcs drift et. al.

It was only in 3rd ed when the wfrp started to come out that we started getting really beautifully fleshed out bits of writing detailing the world, and so in many ways cementing the germanic dark feel that we were to get used to.

I'd welcome some source books, don't worry about new models to support them etc, just give me meaty well written source material to inspire me and invite me to forge my own narrative.

It would be interesting to see where the lore of AoS is after 30 years, after all, like all good settings it has grown over time and been added to and built on till it's something much much larger than itself.

I really wish Rick Priestley and the late Alan Bligh were still around to give some serious longbeard mood and feel guidance.