Other than new factions, have any old factions go new models?

[bsharitt]

I never played WHFB, so I don't know what the armies looked like pre-AoS. So other than new factions, has GW released new models for any of the old factions since AoS came. All I can think of right now is the Lord of Change(but he was just as much a 40k release). Have any of the other pre-AoS factions gotten any love from GW?

(EDIT: And by old factions, I mean not completely new like Stormcast or Overlords, but "new" factions that were plucked from old factions like Ironjaws or Syvaneth are considered "old")

[Guest]

Depends on how you look at it. Sylvaneth are new to the lore for AoS, but their model range started out with just the tree-people elements of the old WHFB Wood Elves range - it's since been expanded with lots of new models.

Slaves to Darkness is the old WHFB Chaos Warriors range - they've had the Darkoath Chieftain and Slambo added.

Chaos Daemons you've already mentioned - various new Tzeentch models.

[Menkeroth]

Alas, they've got practically nothing, if we regard solely completely old ones. In this case it is Kairos, Lord of Change, Changeling, and crypt flayers for the Flesh eater courts.  But, on the other hand, we can say that we have now a pair of new elves (despite they are not a part of any faction yet), a new warpriest and barbarian (for Slaves to Darkness), new Archaon and gaunt summoners for Tzeentch, so not that bad either. And you are right, those who were derived from the old races can be considered their part, so we've got Ironjawz, Fyreslayers and Sylvaneth, and they were all made ready before AoS - just development of old ideas (as are Kharadrons as well). Also there are new skeletons on the move (for the Shadespire). 

[bsharitt]

Cool. I didn't realize that that Sylvaneth had that many new models. I've just been trying to decipher whether GW was just doing new stuff for new factions, and the old stuff was just just place holders, but it looks like they're supporting some of the old factions made new especially if they've gotten new lore.

[Guest]

@bsharitt There's no discernible pattern. Some old factions have been expanded a lot (Sylvaneth), others a little (Slaves to Darkness) and most have so far not received any new models. Some old factions have been very prominent in the ongoing story of the AoS setting, others have almost disappeared or never been mentioned at all. Some that have disappeared are almost certain to come back with lots of new models (Slaanesh), others have probably had their time and will be quietly dropped at some point in the future.

Trying to guess what GW will do next or how they'll handle any given faction is a fool's errand! And I quite like it that way! 

[Menkeroth]

8 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

Cool. I didn't realize that that Sylvaneth had that many new models. I've just been trying to decipher whether GW was just doing new stuff for new factions, and the old stuff was just just place holders, but it looks like they're supporting some of the old factions made new especially if they've gotten new lore.

 

 

Exactly - honestly I've feared that as well, but it appeared they give attention to many, just in different variants. Even returning of old stuff like Spire of Dawn (Island of blood actually) indicates they intend on not forgetting old stuff.

[Killax]

It's a good question and the simple fact of the matter is that I believe that Games Workshop does not intend to carry the older ranges forever but instead spoonfeed new characters and units that look akin to the old but not completely. This will eventually lead into AoS being a game that by far and large covers Aos models. So the models that did come out for 'older factions' are likely to be the new look for that eventual fation. 

So about old factions... Strictly speaking there are no old factions, as we see every old faction of WFB has been split up in sub-factions of it's own. The only reason for me to do that from GW's standpoint is to be able to drop certain lines without players being in complete panic. I also believe that GW intended to drop more as TK and Brettonia a year orso ago but stopped that due to the reactions it created.

What I expect now is that production of certain ranges has allready stopped but there is still so much stock that we shouldn't really worry for it now. Plus a lot of WFB models that have came out in more recent years are still perfectly usable. 

What GW implements now as the strategy to still make their newer ranges more sellable has to do with the dynamic, size and overall look of the models. Not too many seem to have noticed it in the past but WFB models rarely looked as exact like the art as AoS models do. A lot of these visual ques will eventually lead you to newer models because they do not only look better in real live they are also promoted better.

---

Offtopic hopes and guesses
What I hope to see is that AoS will recieve some of the clearer form we see in 40K. For Chaos for example this is relatively easy to do, same for Order. Both Death and Destruction are smaller factions... I wouldn't be extremely suprised to see this change to Destruction in general. We see 40K split up in Imperium, Chaos and Xenos and for GW this is also a whole lot easier to manage...

In any case, what I hope/expect Chaos will eventually look like is:
- "Chaos Undivided", Slaves to Darkness + Everchosen + Monsters of Chaos
- "Horned God", All Skaven Clans 
- "Khorne", Blades of Khorne
- "Tzeentch", Desciples of Tzeentch
- "Nurgle", Rotbringers + Nurgle Daemons, perhaps that book will be called Blightbringers of Nurgle
- "Slaanesh" Newer range of models again a nice blend of what is known and what is functional to use from Beastmen.

Lastly what I expect and slighty see allready aswell is that Beastmen will be eventually blended into several factions. So I think we'd see Undivided Beastmen being part of that, Tzeentch has it's Tzaangors, Khorne has it's Khorgraths etc. 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Killax said:

In any case, what I hope/expect Chaos will eventually look like is:
- "Chaos Undivided", Slaves to Darkness + Everchosen + Monsters of Chaos
- "Horned God", All Skaven Clans 
- "Khorne", Blades of Khorne
- "Tzeentch", Desciples of Tzeentch
- "Nurgle", Rotbringers + Nurgle Daemons, perhaps that book will be called Blightbringers of Nurgle
- "Slaanesh" Newer range of models again a nice blend of what is known and what is functional to use from Beastmen.

Lastly what I expect and slighty see allready aswell is that Beastmen will be eventually blended into several factions. So I think we'd see Undivided Beastmen being part of that, Tzeentch has it's Tzaangors, Khorne has it's Khorgraths etc. 

 

 

You do go on about your combined faction battletomes don't you Killax! 

[Menkeroth]

4 minutes ago, Killax said:

In any case, what I hope/expect Chaos will eventually look like is:
- "Chaos Undivided", Slaves to Darkness + Everchosen + Monsters of Chaos
- "Horned God", All Skaven Clans 
- "Khorne", Blades of Khorne
- "Tzeentch", Desciples of Tzeentch
- "Nurgle", Rotbringers + Nurgle Daemons, perhaps that book will be called Blightbringers of Nurgle
- "Slaanesh" Newer range of models again a nice blend of what is known and what is functional to use from Beastmen.

 

Well, I hope not. I wouldn't want GW to return back especially considering the fact they already have done this a bit. It would be a great shame.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

Well, I hope not. I wouldn't want GW to return back especially considering the fact they already have done this a bit. It would be a great shame.

Really? It seems like a logical step to me. I'm not the biggest fan of allegiance abilities, but making people pay for fewer books seems like a good thing. I don't see the downside.

If the objection is that you'd prefer to see each existing faction expanded rather than combined - ain't gonna happen. There are currently over 50 itty-bitty factions, and there's no way on Earth that GW could ever get around to fleshing out even a fraction of that number - especially when they're releasing all-new factions in between. Better to consolidate factions that have a similar theme and aesthetic so that people who are into them only have to pay for one book.

[Killax]

4 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

You do go on about your combined faction battletomes don't you Killax! 

I guess so! But really I don't see the advantage of having 19 factions in 1 Chaos alone. It doesn't only confuse new players, it makes things unneededly complicated to start out with. In addition, if you make a Battletome and all it does contain is the rules for 3 models (Everchosen) I really think you could have easily covered most of that in White Dwarfs aswell.

A lot of the rules are allready available for free. This severly demotes the 'usefulness' or sale-ability of smaller Battletomes. I mean if you have 20 pages of lore, 3 scenario's and 3 models, why would you pick up that Battletome in the first place?

Just to set an example, Army Narrative becomes functional for an Army game the moment you present an Army in a Battletome and not 3 lose characters/heroes.

3 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

Well, I hope not. I wouldn't want GW to return back especially considering the fact they already have done this a bit. It would be a great shame.

Why would you dislike a "logica containment" of models within an clear army setting? 

I am not promoting that they cannot work together mind you! I am promoting that an army game likes content that is in line with an army, not a handful of guys.

[Vaeron]

1 hour ago, bsharitt said:

I never played WHFB, so I don't know what the armies looked like pre-AoS. So other than new factions, has GW released new models for any of the old factions since AoS came. All I can think of right now is the Lord of Change(but he was just as much a 40k release). Have any of the other pre-AoS factions gotten any love from GW?

(EDIT: And by old factions, I mean not completely new like Stormcast or Overlords, but "new" factions that were plucked from old factions like Ironjaws or Syvaneth are considered "old")

Warhammer Silver tower had a new model for elves, dark elves, slaves of darkness, disciples of sigmar, clan eshin, and maybe a couple others I'm not remembering.

[Menkeroth]

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Really? It seems like a logical step to me. I'm not the biggest fan of allegiance abilities, but making people pay for fewer books seems like a good thing. I don't see the downside.

 

The price is the same, actually. Fewer books are not cheaper than a couple of them because of the size.

1 hour ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

If the objection is that you'd prefer to see each existing faction expanded rather than combined - ain't gonna happen.

The truth does not agree with you, and neither do I.

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Why would you dislike a "logica containment" of models within an clear army setting? 

It is not the best variant to choose from, and in this case I like that different guys get more fluff, because they are quite various sometimes. With the grand alliance system no confusion there really is.

1 hour ago, Killax said:

I am not promoting that they cannot work together mind you! I am promoting that an army game likes content that is in line with an army, not a handful of guys.

 

But AoS is really more an rpg like DnD and so sub-faction system serves better.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

The truth does not agree with you, and neither do I.

That's a really odd statement. We're not talking philosophy or discussing the finer points of a controversial corruption case here! What truth are you talking about?? Are you saying you do expect GW to flesh out all of the 50+ factions the same way they did with Sylvaneth? 

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Menkeroth said:

It is not the best variant to choose from, and in this case I like that different guys get more fluff, because they are quite various sometimes. With the grand alliance system no confusion there really is.

But AoS is really more an rpg like DnD and so sub-faction system serves better.

Well all guys in BoK and DoT have their own fluff, there is an extremely specific section on two of the three sub-factions its made up with. A book can have chapters for every sub-faction. That's allready half the case now aswell. For example Bloodbound being made up with multiple sub-sub-factions  

Keywords and Narrative will retain the sub-factions in lore, like Khorne and Nurgle used to be sub-factions of 'Chaos' so I don't believe it is better served with a sub-sub-faction, essentially what Daemons of Khorne and Khorne Bloodbound or Khorne Slaves to Darkness are.

[Menkeroth]

2 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

That's a really odd statement. We're not talking philosophy or discussing the finer points of a controversial corruption case here! What truth are you talking about?? Are you saying you do expect GW to flesh out all of the 50+ factions the same way they did with Sylvaneth? 

 

Not all, maybe, but many of them to be sure, GW is doing this since the launch, and it's not that hard for most sub-factions even now have few units, so it's a question of fluff mostly and given it's repetitive throughout the book it's not hard either.

2 hours ago, Killax said:

Well all guys in BoK and DoT have their own fluff, there is an extremely specific section on two of the three sub-factions its made up with. A book can have chapters for every sub-faction. That's allready half the case now aswell. For example Bloodbound being made up with multiple sub-sub-factions  

 

As a some kind of a big encompassing book like Grand Alliance - maybe. But not until they all got their own books with fluff.

 

2 hours ago, Killax said:

Keywords and Narrative will retain the sub-factions in lore, like Khorne and Nurgle used to be sub-factions of 'Chaos' so I don't believe it is better served with a sub-sub-faction, essentially what Daemons of Khorne and Khorne Bloodbound or Khorne Slaves to Darkness are.

 

For Chaos it's much easier and we see it now, but even then I hope we will not get again a single Chaos book for all. Brr.

 

[Killax]

5 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

As a some kind of a big encompassing book like Grand Alliance - maybe. But not until they all got their own books with fluff.

For Chaos it's much easier and we see it now, but even then I hope we will not get again a single Chaos book for all. Brr.

 

Well I don't really see the advantage in splitting up fluff. As BoK's example, you can have a 'big/good' book with a lot of fluff that merges into an army. Focussing to much on characters and indiviuals isn't what AoS is about afterall. To me AoS Skirmish and AoS Shadespire will fill in that role better, simply because they do have the characters being the main guys. In addition Shadepire will offer tons of customisation movements and options by AoS comparison. Generally speaking, there are DND elements to AoS but not nearly as much is functional to implement into the game because it's a game played with a ton of models. 

I don't want a Grand Alliance Chaos book either  As said what narratively speaking makes the most sence is what I'd like to see combined.

In our current Archaon Narrative he leads a ton of Slaves to Darkness Warrios aswell, it's even mentioned specifically in Everchosen. Now the oddity is that the whole Everchosen book does not contain any model rules that are currently under Slaves to Darkness.
Likewise, we see Kharadron Overlords being aware of their other Duaradin brothers, it's obious that a player who likes Duaradin would know more about them. Excluding them from a book that could have been Duaradin Overloards (including both Fyreslayers and Kharadron) at this point seems a bit silly as having Duaradin technical specialist who are basically 'air force dwarfs' combined with Fyreslayers hardcore melee 'ground forces' in my opinion would be more awesome.

[Menkeroth]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Well I don't really see the advantage in splitting up fluff.

Obviously in order to have more.

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Focussing to much on characters and indiviuals isn't what AoS is about afterall.

But it is more than on regular troops, you know. Much more.

 

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Generally speaking, there are DND elements to AoS but not nearly as much is functional to implement into the game because it's a game played with a ton of models. 

 

Or with a small quantity and it will as good, and generally it's much more suited to that than to lots of them.

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Excluding them from a book that could have been Duaradin Overloards (including both Fyreslayers and Kharadron) at this point seems a bit silly

 

But then we have much more fluff on them both.

[Killax]

8 hours ago, Menkeroth said:

Obviously in order to have more.

But it is more than on regular troops, you know. Much more.

 

Or with a small quantity and it will as good, and generally it's much more suited to that than to lots of them.

But then we have much more fluff on them both.

To have more what? Books? You think that narrative cannot be contained in a larger book as small magzine like (smaller Battletomes) books?
To me the best way to focus on narrative is with the books that only contain narrative. Black Library does a great job in creating them. That lore is official and there for those who want more depth.

I wouldn't say the focus is more there than on regular troops the way Battletomes are created now it's more or less the same. Like they function more or less the same in AoS. They are all units, you can't always make them more unique.

As above, I don't think multiple smaller books are more suited for the game. By large because it removes the purpose of purchasing them. As the moment the rules in that book are in the app and the book only contains narrative focused on 3-5 models I for sure will not buy it. The moment a book contains all I need to create an army the additional worth becomes that you have all the lore and Warscrolls in one place for an army.
Thake a look from the practical side of it aswell, if I am going to game I'd rather have 1-2 books with me as 3-5.

Lastly more fluff comes in novels, who are there for the players who want more narrative and very specific narrative:
http://www.blacklibrary.com/warhammer-age-of-sigmar/novels 

[KnightFire]

12 hours ago, Killax said:

Well I don't really see the advantage in splitting up fluff.

The very big advantage in splitting up the fluff and having more books (each for smaller factions) is it allows the story to move along. Each book brings new parts to the story and advances the timeline a little. If you just release 10 books, you only get 10 opportunities to advance the story. GW have shown (since end times, and continuing into AoS and now 8th ed 40k) that they really want to keep the stories moving now, rather than have a static setting that doesn't change. 

They want the opportunity to make large sweeping changes to the background (such as humans having recolonised the realms and established cities, with Khorne and Nurgle losing a lot of their influence and Sigmar and Slaanesh gaining influence) as they have done in the recent books.  It is quite clear at some point that something pretty major will happen with Slaanesh, which will have large sweeping consequences for all the realms. The best way to do this is to have lots of releases that allow them to update the story a bit at a time.

[Guest]

@KnightFire As far as I can tell, the faction battletomes tend not to advance the setting in any way. They may introduce new factions in a way that suggests they've just stepped onto the stage (Kharadron Overlords), and obviously they tell smaller stories within the setting, but the actual narrative progression only really happens in the campaign battletomes.

Which makes perfect sense, because if you make meaningful changes to the setting in a faction battletome that's only going to be bought by a fraction of players, most people are going to miss out and end up being confused. Campaign battletomes on the other hand are relevant to everyone - anyone can buy them and get something out of it, regardless of which faction they play.

So even if it made practical sense to make people by 3-4 different books for what essentially amounts to the same faction, saying that this is good because it moves the story forward just doesn't hold up.

 

17 hours ago, Menkeroth said:

The price is the same, actually. Fewer books are not cheaper than a couple of them because of the size.

This comment has been poking at the back of my mind because it seemed off, so I looked into it. 'Everchosen', which has 3 units and can therefore hardly be described as a complete and satisfying faction unto itself, is the most expensive battletome released so far at £35.

'Blades of Khorne', which logically combines Bloodbound and Khorne Daemons and features a huge variety of units, is priced at £25. And there's nothing stopping you from continuing to treat these two sub-factions as separate entities - you don't have to combine them in your army.

The cheapest battletome ever costs £15. Even if all faction battletomes were priced this cheaply, keeping the tiny faction splits still doesn't represent value for money. To play a complete Free Peoples army in the spirit of the old Empire army, you need Collegiate Arcane, Devoted of Sigmar, Free People and Ironweld Arsenal - that would be 4 faction battletomes at a cost of £60 even at the cheapest end of the scale. And 'Everchosen' at £35 shows that the cheapest end of the scale is not a given.

A combine Free Peoples book in the style of Blades of Khorne would cost £25 - more than half the cost (at least) of releasing a separate battletome for each tiny sub-faction.

So the price is not the same.

[Killax]

28 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

The very big advantage in splitting up the fluff and having more books (each for smaller factions) is it allows the story to move along. Each book brings new parts to the story and advances the timeline a little. If you just release 10 books, you only get 10 opportunities to advance the story. GW have shown (since end times, and continuing into AoS and now 8th ed 40k) that they really want to keep the stories moving now, rather than have a static setting that doesn't change. 

They want the opportunity to make large sweeping changes to the background (such as humans having recolonised the realms and established cities, with Khorne and Nurgle losing a lot of their influence and Sigmar and Slaanesh gaining influence) as they have done in the recent books.  It is quite clear at some point that something pretty major will happen with Slaanesh, which will have large sweeping consequences for all the realms. The best way to do this is to have lots of releases that allow them to update the story a bit at a time.

Stories don't move along with Battletomes, that's more or less the difference between a Battletome and the Novels as adressed above. I still don't really know why players mix up these types of books, because all they really share is that they both are books. The prime difference between the two is and should be:
Battletomes - Contain in depth background, look at the past successions of Armies
Novels - Contain the living story, look at the future successions of Armies

Moral is stories will move along but they don't move along based on the Codex, Armybooks or Battletomes, they never really did either. You can't because once it's written down and contains rules your 'stuck' with narrative. Novels on the other hand do not contain any rules and their stories are the foundation for following Battletomes.

In short, larger Battletomes do not hinder succession of stories at all. The continiuation of stories however is found in Novels not Battletomes (never). 
 

[Killax]

As a general statement I think it's almost common to see players on the AoS forums who are opposed to larger Battletomes do not completely realize how different certain Battletomes are and how the value of a book increases the moment it contains both more narrative or rules. While the cost, despite game content, largely fluctuates. 
It increases its worth because it offers much more as the free app (in terms of Narrative, collected rules and scenarios). As in my opinion, Everchosen as the example, the free app offers much more as the Everchosen Battletome does. It's just extremely silly to make a whole book for 3 models in my opinion because you can't form an army with just those 3 models.

Imagne, for those who think Narrative continues based with Battletomes, you bought a Novel that would split up each chapter into a seperate book. In a way you could call this 'making it a comic'. The worth of this typically is viewed as lower as that of a book because it contains a fraction of what you want to know.

In an offtopic vein, to clearify the point, Comic sales are doing bad, worse with the years it seems despite the movies. What does sell is the grand collections of story arcs, in fact that sells really well. As a Comic movie usually is that and as a fan of World War Hulk I can also hightly recommend picking that up in an overlapping massive Comic book. Manga, the Japanese version of Comics on the other side of the world are selling incredibly well. Manga typically cover 8+ chapters and are a true book instead of a Comic containing 1 or a half chapter. 

AoS is now (in my eyes) selling Comic chapters for some factions and true Comic collections for others. The collection in my opinion is worth more because it allows you to go through the whole story from one source, instead of many. You are working with an army and the more choices you will have for your Army the more it will feel like an Army. The AoS game isn't that focused on characters therefor the books that are created for the game (Battletomes not Novels) in my opinion should cover as much logical Unit choices as possible.
 

[Menkeroth]

3 hours ago, Killax said:

To have more what? Books?

Fluff. It's a revelation for you, obviously, but larger books contain fewer fluff as they have too much rules of different sorts. It's started with the DoT where we still have scenarios but without any attached fluff as before. Think about it.

3 hours ago, Killax said:

I wouldn't say the focus is more there than on regular troops the way Battletomes are created now it's more or less the same.

Well, I'm not surprised. But still - count the number of heroes and non-heroes in all books first. You will be surprised how many heroes you get and how few rank and file troops. In all, I repeat. In FB it was vice verse, but everything changes, no matter wish you this or not. 

 

3 hours ago, Killax said:

They are all units, you can't always make them more unique.

With times of war you can. And in general nothing prevents you from this.

3 hours ago, Killax said:

As above, I don't think multiple smaller books are more suited for the game. By large because it removes the purpose of purchasing them. As the moment the rules in that book are in the app and the book only contains narrative focused on 3-5 models I for sure will not buy it. The moment a book contains all I need to create an army the additional worth becomes that you have all the lore and Warscrolls in one place for an army.

 

from the gaming point of view, maybe. But from the lore - no, and I first and foremost like fluff and only then rules. Fluff is what really matters because numbers you can find in any game, but AoS is a setting first and a game second.

3 hours ago, Killax said:

Thake a look from the practical side of it aswell, if I am going to game I'd rather have 1-2 books with me as 3-5.

When everything is in one app, your argument is invalid.

47 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

The very big advantage in splitting up the fluff and having more books (each for smaller factions) is it allows the story to move along. Each book brings new parts to the story and advances the timeline a little. If you just release 10 books, you only get 10 opportunities to advance the story. GW have shown (since end times, and continuing into AoS and now 8th ed 40k) that they really want to keep the stories moving now, rather than have a static setting that doesn't change. 

They want the opportunity to make large sweeping changes to the background (such as humans having recolonised the realms and established cities, with Khorne and Nurgle losing a lot of their influence and Sigmar and Slaanesh gaining influence) as they have done in the recent books.  It is quite clear at some point that something pretty major will happen with Slaanesh, which will have large sweeping consequences for all the realms. The best way to do this is to have lots of releases that allow them to update the story a bit at a time.

 

This.

4 minutes ago, Killax said:

The AoS game isn't that focused on characters

But it is. Heroic phase, command abilities, characters are much more powerful than rank and file troops etc. Suprise, yes.

[Killax]

Just now, Menkeroth said:

Fluff. It's a revelation for you, obviously, but larger books contain fewer fluff as they have too much rules of different sorts. It's started with the DoT where we still have scenarios but without any attached fluff as before. Think about it.

Well, I'm not surprised. But still - count the number of heroes and non-heroes in all books first. You will be surprised how many heroes you get and how few rank and file troops. In all, I repeat. In FB it was vice verse, but everything changes, no matter wish you this or not. 

 

With times of war you can. And in general nothing prevents you from this.

from the gaming point of view, maybe. But from the lore - no, and I first and foremost like fluff and only then rules. Fluff is what really matters because numbers you can find in any game, but AoS is a setting first and a game second.

When everything is in one app, your argument is invalid.

But it is. Heroic phase, command abilities, characters are much more powerful than rank and file troops etc. Suprise, yes.

It's typical to see, as above, you don't seem to see the difference between the function of a Battletome and Novel. A function that has been crealy made different for an obvious purpose.

Fluff continues with the Novels, the Battletomes refer to past battles covered by past Novels, such as the defeat of Khul by the hands of the Stormcasts. 
Your incorrect statement remains that larger books would include less fluff. This is objectively false.

The game is played with armies and the way you can modulate Hero Units compaired to Infantry or Cavalry Units defeats the point your trying to make.
The game is also currently set up that way for many of the Narrative and Matched play games. As the moment you look for Battalions (a reflection of the Warbands that are there in the narrative) you see less Heroes as Infantry/Cavalry/Monsters making up that Battalion in 9/10 cases.

If you like continuation of lore, you should pick up Novels who are focused on that and made for that. Again the function of a Battletome is not to be a continuation of lore, it never was for Games Workshop.

The point about the app your trying to make is completely nonsensical. You can buy Novels on an app like you can buy Battletomes on an app. The worth of a hardcopy piece remains higher the moment it offers more as the app. The way the book has the Warscrolls contained into one place drastically improves the time required to build up an army. The free app is functional for in-game reasons, pre-game the free app offers way too little content for a Narrative or Matched game.

Your last comment shows your inexperience with the AoS game... As model counts are extremely important in AoS. It is not Hero-hammer. As before, AoS Skirmish and Shadespire do cover those game-types.