relic456

I'm gonna choose to interpret that no Nighthaunt FAQ update might mean a new battletome sooner rather than later! Great to have Krulghast clarity none the less!

I think when a company does something you disagree with, a little shouting in public is a good thing. Not shilling on the internet is also an option, but I'll shout and you can shill and I'll buy you a beer if the warscroll builder isn't paywalled in the next year or so.

For now but you know it's coming. W+ REALLY pissed me off by killing the old AoS app, no way I'm going to reward that financially. You can play the game for free now, its baffling that they want to burn through good will this way. Why am I giving them any money if they don't respect the players?

Just to make sure I'm understanding your position here. You're acknowledging that there is a mathematically superior way of arranging your models, that may take extended periods of time, but that the player is supposed to ignore that fact? If the design intent was to not have something happen, then the rules should be written so that thing doesn't happen. It's bad design to just leave a mathematically superior option and just hope that players don't do that thing.

That's why I switched to TTS my man, can play the game entirely for free and reduces the pain of GW shenanigans. Decided to see what the release dates were for the 40k 9th edition rules and the 9th edition army FAQS. Looks like the rules were up on July 2nd, 2020 and the FAQs were up on July 13th, 2020. The AoS 3.0 rules went up on June 14th, 2021, so we could very well have the FAQs by June 25th!

Too true, at least at that point the conversation can shift to "Well maybe when they get a 3.0 battletome!", which is much farther away.

Yikes does each army only get several games of playtesting? Or is it that each playtester plays several games with each army? (Assuming several means between like 3 and 5, which may be wrong) Re: points, when are we thinking day 1 FAQs drop? It feels like the last piece of the puzzle a lot of armies are waiting for. Not sure my heart can handle all this incomplete information much longer. I want to give you my money GW, help me do that! 😄

A hobby is literally anything you regularly do for fun. This is straight up gatekeeping nonsense. We play Age of Sigmar differently, it's still the same game. But hey 3.0 right?

You play your hobby and I'll play mine homie. I find the game just as fulfilling on TTS (plus significant QoL improvements) as in person play. I can live without in person models if it saves me from wasting money on bad rules.

100%, they don't do themselves any favors. Especially since you can play the full game online without spending a penny. One can call it entitlement, I see it as trying to make an informed decision. But if they want to capitalize on FOMO and vagueness, I'll just save my money and play on TTS. No skin off my back 🤷‍♂️

Coven Throne and Mortis Engine got some decent bumps, interested to see what their warscrolls are.

Can't determine if being written with 3.0 in mind is a good thing or a bad thing lol DoK, Maggotkin, and IDK were written with 2.0 in mind and were quite strong competitively for a while. But Nighthaunt and the 2.0 SCE tome didn't really work out at all. Where will Soulblight land and does anyone have a crystal ball they're willing to use to tell me? 🤣

There are several instances in the Designer's Commentary FAQ for the Core Rules that illustrate how a retreat move is a type of normal move, but that normal moves are also their own thing.

Usually when you make a normal move within 3" of an enemy, you have to choose to either remain stationary or retreat. The Riders of Ruin opens up a third option, a non-retreat normal move.

Well that's hardly any fun now is it?

Because the rule opens by saying that the Blood Knights can make a normal move while within 3" of the enemy, I agree with @Raptor_Jesues. Otherwise, the rule would just open with "If this unit makes a retreat, it can pass across...." right?

I mean yeah hindsight is 20/20 lol No need to yell at the people who are bummed that GW didn't go that direction.

Definitely appreciate your optimism @warhammernerd and there are certainly things to celebrate if you like the art direction they landed on. Only a few things I take issue with really: Named characters have almost been across the board not competitively viable outside centerpiece models like Archaon, Nagash, etc. Not impossible that GW bucked the trend this time around but just saying historically that isn't the case. This is great if you have Cursed City I guess, but considering the supply issues, nobody wins. Either the CCC (Cursed City Circus) is strong enough to play, and the many people who didn't get a copy are screwed. Or the CCC are bad and your models aren't actually as versatile as advertised. Personally, the flexibility of being able to take models piecemeal would have been my preferred direction. Just a difference in an opinion, but I would consider how you would feel if they had made SLG primarily elite vampire footmen and I said to you "maybe you should play OBR instead?"

Yeah okay, @Ghoooouls must have been referring to the Vyrkos Blood-born from Cursed City. I agree with you guys, since everything else in the 4chan leak was accurate, I too believe they won't be available outside the Cursed City circus.

I'm out of the loop on this, Vampire infantry was my #1 on the wishlist, where are these from?

An army with a bunch of named lords is a big red flag imo, will have to see how the rules shake out but named lords aren't often competitively viable (Khorne, Nighthaunt, Nurgle, SCE).

Super bummed with the style direction they went for the remaining SBG, was hoping for a 5/10 man elite Vampire unit and more heroes like the ones in the Crimson Court, less weird amalgams. Ah well.

You won't find any argument from me on those points. I approach my game play with that attitude but would never want to impress that on another, especially a newbie, without understanding what they want out of it. I think actively trying to dissuade that behavior is a good thing for the game.

I'm curious to see what you think that would look like. By nature the game is competitive because it's one player versus another. Are there any games or systems that pit two players against each other that don't inspire competition? It just seems like the natural progression of things when every game of AoS has a winner and a loser. I think even the most casual of player thinks after a game "That went well/poorly, what can I do next time to do better?" That's the spark behind all of these balance conversations to me. Is that the tournament crowd's fault? Or is it a problem with the game's design 🤔 I argue the latter but understand why you'd think it's the former.

@wayniac @Joseph Mackay I'm curious, do you think the game would be better or worse than it is now without the pressure on GW to make their game more competitive? I ask because I personally believe as the game's balance improves, the game becomes more enjoyable for ALL players, even those who couldn't give a Skaven's butt about tournaments and meta. Lots of anecdotes and stories of new players accidentally falling in love with armies on two sides of the competitive spectrum and having a bad time. Heck, even my lived experience has resulted in significantly less money paid to GW than could have been if the game had better balance.