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

[KnightFire]

27 minutes ago, Killax said:

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:
 

That really isnt true, the stormcast enternals new battletome advances the story by 300 years. As far as we can see, GW have stopped doing the old Realmgate wars books (which is a shame, I preferred them to battletomes) in favour of advancing the story in the newer battletomes.

 

I have all the battletomes, all the realmgate wars, and most of the novels, and they all have different bits of fluff in them, to get the full picture you need to read them all (which is why I have them all).

 

I think one of the design goals of AoS was (and still is) to move away from the ideas of big faction releases with an army book, and then not revisiting them for 3 years. Frequent small book releases allows GW to expand and add new things as and when they want to release them (based on when they think they will sell). 

I think a lot of players are still hung up on the old WHFB way of thinking of "I want an army book and a big release" rather than the AoS approach of "Its in the app, and they can release new models as and when because I have access to them in the app".

 

[Killax]

300 years in the realms of AoS mean close to nothing, so as to why you mention it as if it does is vague to me. We are in the Age of Sigmar, well stick in that age for a long 'immortal' time. The game is called Age of Sigmar for a reason. 

The free app again offers no Narrative, no Army Abilities or Army construction.

The moment you want to pay for this content youll see hardcopies sell better. The more a book offers that isnt in the free app the more value it has to a gamer.

[KnightFire]

2 minutes ago, Killax said:

300 years in the realms of AoS mean close to nothing, so as to why you mention it as if it does is vague to me. We are in the Age of Sigmar, well stick in that age for a long 'immortal' time.

The free app again offers no Narrative, no Army Abilities or Army construction.

The moment you want to pay for this content youll see hardcopies sell better. The more a book offers that isnt in the free app the more value it has to a gamer.

I guess you haven't read the new stormcast book then?

To summarise:

- The stormcast completed their expansion out from Azyr into their realms, stabilised the gains made in the realmgate wars books

- Human tribes returned from the various places they were hiding, and started to colonise the territories liberated by the stormcast

- The tribes built cities, established cultures (universities, trade, the arts, all the stuff that was missing from the mortal realms in the age of chaos)

- Khorne and nurgle have been beaten back a bit, and are licking their wounds and plotting

- Tzeench has gained a lot of power (tzeentch thrives on plots, schemes and manipulation of ideas, its much easier to do this to a culture that has politics, trade and art, than to one that is worrying where its next meal will come from and if they will survive the night). If you read between the lines you get the impression that tzeentch gained so much from the re-establishment of human cultures, that it may actually have been the plan all along.

Then in the KO book, a race (duardin) that has been hiding in the skies during the age of chaos has returned, much changed, but bringing some real interesting trade opportunities to these new settlements.

So why did I mention it? Only because the fluff in the stormcast and KO tomes is arguably the most important thing to happen to the mortal realms since the end of the age of chaos.

 

[Killax]

I have, the question I have for you is if you paid for that content or got it from a Russian website  This is the difference is having an additional value to your content. What we see is that Narrative as you mention again comes from the Novels and a compound copy of that is put into the Battletomes.

The game itself functions with game purposes, rules if you will, not what happend yesterday or what will happen tomorrow. Narrative is important but doesn't make a game. 

As before, you do not seem to see the difference between a Novel and Battletome and the purposes they have.

[KnightFire]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

I have, the question I have for you is if you paid for that content or got it from a Russian website  

I paid for it all, (in the app, as downloads for the battletomes, as physical books for the realmgate wars books, and as kindle ebooks for the novels). Im pretty old I guess, so have the money to afford it, and AoS is my main hobby and I really like following the narrative of it (I am a narrative gamer at heart). 

None of the narrative I mentioned above comes from the novels (there is only one recent novel, city of secrets, which is set after the stuff I mentioned) its all from the battletomes, so your assertion about lore coming from novels and not from battletomes just doesn't hold out.

Narrative absolutely makes the game for those of us that like to play narrative games. It is 100% more important than the game rules!

[Menkeroth]

1 hour ago, KnightFire said:

I paid for it all, (in the app, as downloads for the battletomes, as physical books for the realmgate wars books, and as kindle ebooks for the novels). Im pretty old I guess, so have the money to afford it, and AoS is my main hobby and I really like following the narrative of it (I am a narrative gamer at heart). 

None of the narrative I mentioned above comes from the novels (there is only one recent novel, city of secrets, which is set after the stuff I mentioned) its all from the battletomes, so your assertion about lore coming from novels and story from battletomes just doesn't hold out.

Narrative absolutely makes the game for those of us that like to play narrative games. It is 100% more important than the game rules!

 

This. Our friend just lives in another world obviously if he sees this all that wrong. The only difference is that in FB there was no progress in the story in armybooks, but otherwise, what a revelation, rule section in them was one-third at best, and the rest 60+ pages were fluff. In AoS little has changed since then in this regard. Battletomes depict main principles and basics of the faction, novels merely expand them but they never were the main source of fluff. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, KnightFire said:

I think one of the design goals of AoS was (and still is) to move away from the ideas of big faction releases with an army book, and then not revisiting them for 3 years. Frequent small book releases allows GW to expand and add new things as and when they want to release them (based on when they think they will sell).

Having meatier battletomes that combine factions doesn't restrict the release schedule in any way. What really liberates the release schedule is making the rules and warscrolls free and easily accessible, because GW don't need to release a book (large or small) for people to be able to use the models. They can expand and add new things however they like, regardless of how frequently the books are released or what form they take. There's no reason to fear combined faction battletomes in that regard.

Also, if you think it was bad waiting for an army update or new goodies for your faction in WHFB, which had just 9 factions, how much longer are you going to have to wait in AoS if it continues with 50+ unconsolidated factions? You'll be lucky if your faction is ever visited at all in the entire multi-decade lifetime of the game.

 

2 hours ago, KnightFire said:

I think a lot of players are still hung up on the old WHFB way of thinking of "I want an army book and a big release" rather than the AoS approach of "Its in the app, and they can release new models as and when because I have access to them in the app".

There's undoubtedly an element of that but I think it's more that:

1. People don't want the cost of multiple books to field a single army.
2. People don't want the inconvenience of having to carry around multiple books and switch between them during games.

There is a sweet spot for faction sizes where they're neither too fragmented nor unnecessarily bloated. It doesn't make sense to have a Thunderscorn faction with 2 units that don't synergise with anything, just as it doesn't make sense to roll so many factions into one that it starts looking like a Grand Alliance all to itself. The battletomes released so far in 2017 consolidate factions in a way that feels practical and appropriate. It's a far cry from returning to the old WHFB armies.

[Killax]

3 hours ago, KnightFire said:

I paid for it all, (in the app, as downloads for the battletomes, as physical books for the realmgate wars books, and as kindle ebooks for the novels). Im pretty old I guess, so have the money to afford it, and AoS is my main hobby and I really like following the narrative of it (I am a narrative gamer at heart). 

None of the narrative I mentioned above comes from the novels (there is only one recent novel, city of secrets, which is set after the stuff I mentioned) its all from the battletomes, so your assertion about lore coming from novels and not from battletomes just doesn't hold out.

Narrative absolutely makes the game for those of us that like to play narrative games. It is 100% more important than the game rules!

Again you seem to pick out fragments and not explain why a larger Battletome would not be able to cover this.

Fact of the matter is that both BoK and DoT do cover all lore required, progressed and includes all logical army models.

[Killax]

2 hours ago, Menkeroth said:

This. Our friend just lives in another world obviously if he sees this all that wrong. The only difference is that in FB there was no progress in the story in armybooks, but otherwise, what a revelation, rule section in them was one-third at best, and the rest 60+ pages were fluff. In AoS little has changed since then in this regard. Battletomes depict main principles and basics of the faction, novels merely expand them but they never were the main source of fluff. 

False statement in both cases.

Liber Chaotica was an background lore tmand narrative book that came after 6th whos details about clans and weapons where implemented in bith 7th ed and 8th ed Warriors an Daemons of Chaos.

Bigger Battletomes can cover it all. The factions who have multiple smaller Battletomes make little to no added value to the game because they do not cover the extend of their model ranges.

Moral remains, splitting up Stormcasts into Stormcasts and Stormcasts Extremis is just unneeded. Sub-sub(-sub) factions is not adding anything at this point.

[Menkeroth]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Fact of the matter is that both BoK and DoT do cover all lore required, progressed and includes all logical army models.

BoK maybe, but DoT not, for they, obviously, cover only cults with tzaangors and demons - without all the other warriors of Tzeentch, so no.

1 hour ago, Killax said:

False statement in both cases.

On your part yes, without a doubt. Especially with the fact Liber Chaotica and Necris are way smaller than the Realms of Chaos dilogy (where it was everything from fluff to rules) and a lot smaller compared to the armybooks which, no matter how hard you deny it, have only handful rules pages and 60+ of fluff, and your attempts to ignore this change nothing in the reality. And yes, BRB in FB had only a third of it rules wise, all the rest were hobby sections. Surprise.

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Bigger Battletomes can cover it all.

No, and only at a great price.

1 hour ago, Killax said:

The factions who have multiple smaller Battletomes make little to no added value to the game because they do not cover the extend of their model ranges.

2

Reality is way different from your point of view, sadly, especially in cases of those who are not one and the same army fluff and rules wise. 

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Moral remains, splitting up Stormcasts into Stormcasts and Stormcasts Extremis is just unneeded. Sub-sub(-sub) factions is not adding anything at this point.

 

Them - yes, because they are one and the same armies. Chaos to some extent - yes, but not all of the rest to be sure, and we see this with KO, for example, so yes, moral remains that only some factions can be unified, but way not all, and it is smaller ones who add everything.

[Killax]

Again, false statements. Both DoT and BoK only do not cover slaves to darkness. Models that logically are part of everchosen as they form armies of multiple gods. Reflected in the rules of for example Chaos Warriors who can recieve different marks.

As before the role of a Battletome is to profide content for the game. It has enough of everything to start. This is not a great cost but a great opertunity.

Stormcasts are not alone, fact of the matter, as said pages ago, there are loads of factions who logically should come in one Battletome. From Duaradin to Skaven to Chaos Warriors and Death Rattle Champions.

Archy doesnt just lead Varanguard and Gaunt Summoners. Therefor the Battletome does not cover its functionality for game content

[KnightFire]

19 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

Also, if you think it was bad waiting for an army update or new goodies for your faction in WHFB, which had just 9 factions, how much longer are you going to have to wait in AoS if it continues with 50+ unconsolidated factions? You'll be lucky if your faction is ever visited at all in the entire multi-decade lifetime of the game.

 

That assumes that factions get updates in a cyclical order, with a full refresh for each faction. I don't think it would be that way, upates to factions will come as and when GW has something new they want to release for that faction, and won't be limited to having to release new battletomes. Its really easy to release a new model for a faction, give it a warscroll and matched play profile.

14 hours ago, Killax said:

Again, false statements. Both DoT and BoK only do not cover slaves to darkness. Models that logically are part of everchosen as they form armies of multiple gods. Reflected in the rules of for example Chaos Warriors who can recieve different marks.

Stormcasts are not alone, fact of the matter, as said pages ago, there are loads of factions who logically should come in one Battletome. From Duaradin to Skaven to Chaos Warriors and Death Rattle Champions.

Archy doesnt just lead Varanguard and Gaunt Summoners. Therefor the Battletome does not cover its functionality for game content

 

It seems your definition of "cover" means "has rules for" then, rather than "has story and lore for" - if you actually read the DoT battletome you will see that there is quite a bit of stuff that doesn't have any real lore (perhaps one paragraph), especially for the daemons. Most of the significant lore in there is around the arcanites, and how they structure their covens and the types of organisations they like to infiltrate.

Duardin, Skaven and Chaos Warriors absolutely wouldnt benefit from single battletomes, they are much better split out into distinct factions with different flavours - there is no coherence between different skaven factions, so allowing each to develop its own flavour in its own battletome is the right thing to do. 

It seems you just don't want to accept that different people have different views, and try and claim that anyone with a different view is making "false statements" - this comes across as very childish.

[Killax]

45 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

It seems your definition of "cover" means "has rules for" then, rather than "has story and lore for" - if you actually read the DoT battletome you will see that there is quite a bit of stuff that doesn't have any real lore (perhaps one paragraph), especially for the daemons. Most of the significant lore in there is around the arcanites, and how they structure their covens and the types of organisations they like to infiltrate.

Duardin, Skaven and Chaos Warriors absolutely wouldnt benefit from single battletomes, they are much better split out into distinct factions with different flavours - there is no coherence between different skaven factions, so allowing each to develop its own flavour in its own battletome is the right thing to do. 

It seems you just don't want to accept that different people have different views, and try and claim that anyone with a different view is making "false statements" - this comes across as very childish.

My definition of logical coverage is that if they are in the narrative (which they are) of the book there should be rules for those models in a book that makes it the most logical. In many cases one paragraph of lore can be sufficient for the game. We also see this on the Warscrolls which give a good flavour text to the model, making it easier to blend them into your own narrative.
Because Age of Sigmar is a 'create your own army' game I am very happy that enough is left open for own interpretation. What you can do in AoS and can't do in Lord of the Rings for example is create your own character based on a shortly mentioned army. As an example, we have a Bloodbound army who consider themselves the force for Skarbrand, not much is mentioned about them but enough is mentioned to inspire you to create such an army.

As Duaradin are mentioned as a force bythemselves it's extremely illogical to seperate their battletomes, luckily GW agrees and now gives former Warriors of Chaos the logical books their narrative describes, DoT and BoK as the example. Again what is illogical is that Everchosen mentions how Archaon leads the Slaves to Darkness yet not a single game aspect of that is covered, all the while Everchosen speaks about several Chaos Warriors, Lords of Chaos and many more. Again the whole reason why he does this is because he represents "Chaos Undivided" while Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle and more cover "Chaos Devided".  In addition there is a coherence between different Skaven factions, a massive one, one that is the Horned God and represented in the Keywords Chaos and Skaven. As said, sub-sub-sub-factions have very little additional value for the game, close to none actually.

If you make false statements that state that Duaradin, Chaos Warriors and others cannot function within a larger Battletome your straight up proving yourselves wrong by ignoring how well certain Battletomes are written now (2017). If a book can become a single 150 page book there is no reason to make it into 3 50 pages books, there is little to no value to that for anyone. 

As before, narrative speaks of armies, Age of Sigmar the game is about armies, the moment I see a book that does not contain enough models to remotely build an army around it's objectively speaking not a good book for the game, as the game requires more as 3 models. And why do I focus on the game for Battletome's? Because it's gaming content and not a Novel.
 

[KnightFire]

This is not a matter of logic, it is entirely subjective. Stop using words like "logical" and "false statements" to talk about something that is 100% a matter of opinion, it doesn't make you look good.

 

[Killax]

45 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

This is not a matter of logic, it is entirely subjective. Stop using words like "logical" and "false statements" to talk about something that is 100% a matter of opinion, it doesn't make you look good.

The only logic conclusion I can draw from your statement is that you are uninformed about the subject matters. As what I say is not subjective, it's an objective analysis of the game and how you can improve it. While this sort of topic has little to do with old/new factions, what improves the game is a logical use of Battletomes, 'books revolving around armies' required to play an army game; Age of Sigmar.

Here are several (f)actual examples of what I am talking about:

1. Battletomes are made to improve the game and it's content. It gives depth to the game by including pieces that make sence because the narrative lets it make sence.
- Everchosen currently is a sub-sub-faction that cannot become an army by itself. The content it covers is not content that is enough for logical narrative or matched play as the armies Archaon leads are not somely made up of Varanguard and Guant Summoners. Instead the vast mayority of his army is made up of Slaves to Darkness warriors.
2. Skaven currently is split up in multiple sub-sub-sub-factions who do work together in both narrative and game.
- Stormfiends for example are both Moulder and Skryre, the reason behind this is because it's a fact that these Clans co-operate.
- The example of another oddity within "Skaven split up" is Tanquol and Boneripper, while Boneripper clearly visually represents a massive Stormfiend, has Warpfire Projectors as well as the same armoursave he is not part of either of the above clans now. From a visual and narrative standpoint this is very illogical. 
- In both cases the split up of these Skaven sub-faction does not add any logic. More than anything it removes it.
3. Destruction currently has several forces of Orruks and Ogors working together. Not only does the narrative confirm this, even the game confirms this with the Battalion that combines both forces. Having that Battalion is awesome, not having the forces in the same book that make up this Battalion make it non-functional for the player who only has that book.
4. Several Keywords and ruling are extremely specific. In many cases they are in line with narrative. Khorne's forces are made up of Daemons and Mortals. Khorne Abilities allow for buffing specific sub-sub-factions within Khorne (Such as The Crimson Crown only affecting Khorne Daemons) and others simply look for the Keyword only (such as Rage of Khorne).

What we see is that players can choose to however they want to sub-devide their sub-faction allready. The moment you present this in the same logical compound way the game's abilities note this you present an army book for an army game.
 

[KnightFire]

22 minutes ago, Killax said:

The only logic conclusion I can draw from your statement is that you are uninformed about the subject matters.

As what I say is not subjective, it's an objective analysis of the game and how you can improve it. While this sort of topic has little to do with old/new factions, what improves the game is a logical use of Battletomes, 'books revolving around armies' required to play an army game; Age of Sigmar.

Here are several (f)actual examples of what I am talking about:

1. Battletomes are made to improve the game and it's content. It gives depth to the game by including pieces that make sence because the narrative lets it make sence.
- Everchosen currently is a sub-sub-faction that cannot become an army by itself. The content it covers is not content that is enough for logical narrative or matched play as the armies Archaon leads are not somely made up of Varanguard and Guant Summoners. Instead the vast mayority of his army is made up of Slaves to Darkness warriors.
2. Skaven currently is split up in multiple sub-sub-sub-factions who do work together in both narrative and game.
- Stormfiends for example are both Moulder and Skryre, the reason behind this is because it's a fact that these Clans co-operate.
- The example of another oddity within "Skaven split up" is Tanquol and Boneripper, while Boneripper clearly visually represents a massive Stormfiend, has Warpfire Projectors as well as the same armoursave he is not part of either of the above clans now. From a visual and narrative standpoint this is very illogical. 
- In both cases the split up of these Skaven sub-faction does not add any logic. More than anything it removes it.
3. Destruction currently has several forces of Orruks and Ogors working together. Not only does the narrative confirm this, even the game confirms this with the Battalion that combines both forces. Having that Battalion is awesome, not having the forces in the same book that make up this Battalion make it non-functional for the player who only has that book.
4. Several Keywords and ruling are extremely specific. In many cases they are in line with narrative. Khorne's forces are made up of Daemons and Mortals. Khorne Abilities allow for buffing specific sub-sub-factions within Khorne (Such as The Crimson Crown only affecting Khorne Daemons) and others simply look for the Keyword only (such as Rage of Khorne).

What we see is that players can choose to however they want to sub-devide their sub-faction allready. The moment you present this in the same logical compound way the game's abilities note this you present an army book for an army game.
 

The logical conclusion would have been that I have a different opinion to you, not that I don't know the subject, the fact that you state that as a "logical" conclusion is very telling. To address your points:

1 - Completely agreed, battletomes are there to improve the game, I don't think anyone would argue with that.

2- Skaven do sometimes work toegher, but so do other factions in both narrative and game, such as Stormcast + Sylvaneth, Stormcast + KO, Khorne and Skaven, Nurgle and Skaven, etc etc. 

3- As metioned, there are many other factions that work together and have battalions, Stormcast + Sylvaneth, Stormcast + KO, etc. Does this mean that Stormcast + Sylvaneth + KO should all be in one battletome together as one faction? Sylvancast Overlords?

4- Yes, I agree that some keywords have different granularities of what they affect, some affect all friendly models, some all with specific keywords (and these can be faction specific or something else).  I don't know how this links to anything.

 

I don't see how the above are logical proof of anything other than "there are many factions and sub factions in the AoS world, and they ally or fight against each other as dictated by the situation they find themselves in". 

 

I continue to feel that large "army book" style releases stifle the game - I have been involved in warhammer since 2nd edition so have seen a variety of ways of doing battletome type things, have seen their advantages and disadvantages, and personally feel that mixed size factions are a good way to go. This is my opinion, your entitled to a different one, but neither of us is in any way "wrong".

[Menkeroth]

3 hours ago, KnightFire said:

It seems your definition of "cover" means "has rules for" then, rather than "has story and lore for" - if you actually read the DoT battletome you will see that there is quite a bit of stuff that doesn't have any real lore (perhaps one paragraph), especially for the daemons. Most of the significant lore in there is around the arcanites, and how they structure their covens and the types of organisations they like to infiltrate.

Duardin, Skaven and Chaos Warriors absolutely wouldnt benefit from single battletomes, they are much better split out into distinct factions with different flavours - there is no coherence between different skaven factions, so allowing each to develop its own flavour in its own battletome is the right thing to do. 

It seems you just don't want to accept that different people have different views, and try and claim that anyone with a different view is making "false statements" - this comes across as very childish.

This. And I't amusing how our friend fights reality although he has already lost the fight. Situation in FB was quite different, but even then almost all pages in the armybooks were fluff and not rules, and it's amazing to see someone argue that. Now it's even better, with way more various factions and new and exciting lore, so of course, large books are not an answer - they will not cover everything by any means, and they do not actually, like DoT who are cults and such, but by no means all forces of Tzeentch - for example, in the "Quest for Ghal Maraz" there are warriors of Tzeentch and they are not Arcanites. Chaos does benefit from unified forces as he has lots of them (I, for one, will be glad to see in the future Great Congregation of Nurgle book) but many other factions do not. And GW shows that with focusing mostly on single factions and sub-factions.

[Naflem]

4 hours ago, Killax said:

The only logic conclusion I can draw from your statement is that you are uninformed about the subject matters. As what I say is not subjective, it's an objective analysis of the game and how you can improve it. While this sort of topic has little to do with old/new factions, what improves the game is a logical use of Battletomes, 'books revolving around armies' required to play an army game; Age of Sigmar.

Here are several (f)actual examples of what I am talking about:

1. Battletomes are made to improve the game and it's content. It gives depth to the game by including pieces that make sence because the narrative lets it make sence.
- Everchosen currently is a sub-sub-faction that cannot become an army by itself. The content it covers is not content that is enough for logical narrative or matched play as the armies Archaon leads are not somely made up of Varanguard and Guant Summoners. Instead the vast mayority of his army is made up of Slaves to Darkness warriors.
2. Skaven currently is split up in multiple sub-sub-sub-factions who do work together in both narrative and game.
- Stormfiends for example are both Moulder and Skryre, the reason behind this is because it's a fact that these Clans co-operate.
- The example of another oddity within "Skaven split up" is Tanquol and Boneripper, while Boneripper clearly visually represents a massive Stormfiend, has Warpfire Projectors as well as the same armoursave he is not part of either of the above clans now. From a visual and narrative standpoint this is very illogical. 
- In both cases the split up of these Skaven sub-faction does not add any logic. More than anything it removes it.
3. Destruction currently has several forces of Orruks and Ogors working together. Not only does the narrative confirm this, even the game confirms this with the Battalion that combines both forces. Having that Battalion is awesome, not having the forces in the same book that make up this Battalion make it non-functional for the player who only has that book.
4. Several Keywords and ruling are extremely specific. In many cases they are in line with narrative. Khorne's forces are made up of Daemons and Mortals. Khorne Abilities allow for buffing specific sub-sub-factions within Khorne (Such as The Crimson Crown only affecting Khorne Daemons) and others simply look for the Keyword only (such as Rage of Khorne).

What we see is that players can choose to however they want to sub-devide their sub-faction allready. The moment you present this in the same logical compound way the game's abilities note this you present an army book for an army game.
 

Super subjective, IMHO.

[Naflem]

On 5/16/2017 at 8:49 AM, 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")

There's some pretty great End Times models that still fit the AOS feel very well and are pretty new for the old factions, including Undead, Skaven, and Nurgle. 

[Killax]

8 hours ago, KnightFire said:

The logical conclusion would have been that I have a different opinion to you, not that I don't know the subject, the fact that you state that as a "logical" conclusion is very telling. To address your points:

1 - Completely agreed, battletomes are there to improve the game, I don't think anyone would argue with that.

2- Skaven do sometimes work toegher, but so do other factions in both narrative and game, such as Stormcast + Sylvaneth, Stormcast + KO, Khorne and Skaven, Nurgle and Skaven, etc etc. 

3- As metioned, there are many other factions that work together and have battalions, Stormcast + Sylvaneth, Stormcast + KO, etc. Does this mean that Stormcast + Sylvaneth + KO should all be in one battletome together as one faction? Sylvancast Overlords?

4- Yes, I agree that some keywords have different granularities of what they affect, some affect all friendly models, some all with specific keywords (and these can be faction specific or something else).  I don't know how this links to anything.

I don't see how the above are logical proof of anything other than "there are many factions and sub factions in the AoS world, and they ally or fight against each other as dictated by the situation they find themselves in". 

I continue to feel that large "army book" style releases stifle the game - I have been involved in warhammer since 2nd edition so have seen a variety of ways of doing battletome type things, have seen their advantages and disadvantages, and personally feel that mixed size factions are a good way to go. This is my opinion, your entitled to a different one, but neither of us is in any way "wrong".

Written lore, Keywords, game rules and the way the game is set up with it's rules is not a matter of opinion. What would be a matter of opinion is that these could be worded easier or differently, like Games Workshop is now doing for 40K, where not all Keywords are in the same tagline, making things clearer because they are seperated by Faction identity and followed by Character/Warrior identity. The choice is likely made for this because it gives a clear indication of what Keyword stands for which, as before, AoS currently has no use for the sub-sub-sub-factions other than Ability synergy.
The "Bloodbound" Keyword for example doesn't do anything. The single and only exception on the Bloodbound Keyword having any relevance is for Matched play, when your KLoJ is your general and your army is completely Bloodbound.

In any case, the points, I am happy we agree on many areas. It's because of this again that I know it's more benificial to have these contained with the models that create synergy for specific Keywords. Regarding point 2, many factions within a Grand Alliance work together, certainly, as before I'm not suggesting removing that option. What I am suggesting is that models who logically can be combined should be in one Battletome. This is completely based on Keywords they have s these Keywords fit both the narrative and game purposes.

If you don't give a specific definition of what 'mixed size' is for you it's contributing little to the Battletome/faction discussion.
What is technically 'wrong' is that Everchosen is currently depicted as a 'army faction' while Everchosen in both narrative and game cannot be an army. In that same vein I am very happy that Battletome Blades of Khorne is made the way it is and not further divided into:
- Exalted Bloodthirsters of the first host
- Bloodthirsters of the second host
- Bloodthirsters of the third host
- Bloodthirsters of the fourth host
- Bloodthirsters of the fifth host
- Bloodthirsters of the sixt host
- Bloodthirsters of the seventh host
- Bloodthirsters of the eight host
- Daemonic Legions of Khorne
- Lords of Khorne
- Gorechosen
- Khorne Mortal Hordes
- Champions of Slaughter
- Bestial Horrors

The thing is, the above set up still applies for a lot of factions and all it really does is split up things in an illogical way. Gorechosen and Everchosen are essentially the same thing, with the exception that the Everchosen are the chosen of Archaon and multiple gods while the Gorechosen are the chosen of Lords of Khorne and Khorne.

Moral remains, sub-sub-sub-factions add little to nothing to the game, the moment you put the above in one book (Blades of Khorne) it becomes logical because it represents an army as the game requires of you instead of a collection of Monster-Heroes, Heroes, non-Heroes and Monsters.

Cheers,