Lavieth

Part of me wonders if there are some new skaven coming out still. They don't need to show everything that is coming out, but maybe a teaser and the new death master is just that. I still don't think I'd be surprised if there were 2 new kits for skaven that have not been featured if not 3 that are all dual builds. 2 being for Skyre and 1 for Eshin. Gw really does seem to be putting a great deal of effort into replacing those old kits and perhaps it will still happen. Save some of the excitement for later.

A part of me has begun to genuinely wonder if there is the possibility that "Fimir" could make a return as a new faction for destruction now. Much like many of the other older races that have had a considerable glow up (AoS and 40K) and necessary changes to bring them up to date and in line with Games-Workshop's IP. Prior to Leagues of Votaan and the mention of Hashut in the new Slaves to Darkness battletome I'd have laughed at it. Now, I am wondering. Same thing with a grot focused army based around Rippa's Snarlfangs concept.

Last month was mostly successful. I'm struggling to figure out how to paint mdf terrain effectively. So, for this month, my goal will be to continue working on that ork tower and to paint 1 unit of Kurnoth Hunters.

I like the purple myself. The red has been the "go to" for the days of WFB. The purple is nice and striking.

Well done everyone! I don't think I'll manage to finish the terrain piece.

Why though? Just to continue using Kruleboyz as the example, but how does big yellerz fit in as a unique playstyle? All it does is promote a mortal wounds gun line. I do not see how that is unique at all. It gets old very quickly for your opponent when all they are doing is remove their models without any interaction. After awhile it will also get very boring as the player. There is very little opportunity to actually master your army when you limit your playstyle in such a way and that isn't healthy for the game. I think the other two subfactions are actually more unique because they do something more than just mortal wounds. Grinnin Blades and Skullbugz might not be the obvious "winners", but it takes a deeper understanding of one's faction to find ways to be successful with it. It also requires a willingness to accept a player will lose some games while trying learn new ways to play their faction. Who knows, if less people took the "obvious" choices maybe a world of new tactics could be discovered.

All the Kurnoth Hunters are built. 1 unit of 6 with bows and 2 units of swords. Terrain piece is very wip. These mdf kits are a different challenge and experience to paint.

I did state that the quality of produxt presented by Games-Workshop needs to be of a higher quality and that the players should expect as much. Providing criticism is something I would endorse on this matter in an effort for a better balanced game. When books come out with clearly questionable rules, the community should en-mass communicate with Games-Workshop to express their concerns. Perhaps instead of just seeking clarity in rules for an early FAQ the community could also request some rules to be dialed back. One problem I see is that many gamers are more concerned with their experience to win by any means than the overall experience for both parties. We cannot say Games-Workshop needs to build a more balanced game, but then find ways to justify why players want to select mostly from the dominate units. Using dragons as an example, I would argue more people bought an army of them based on their broken rules, more so than because an army of dragons is cool. Let's be honest, how many people would have bought dragons if their rules were subpar? How many people would play an army of dragons if the rules were subpar? The community feeds the poor game designs by buying into them. There is a constant pattern that has been showcased for a number of years now. Just look at at how the "popularity" of the power factions always rises when there is a significant rules imbalance, versus the "popularity" of the factions that are clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum. It is not fair to address the state of the game without examining how people are participating in it. We cannot just say it is a one sided affair. For whatever reason, the war game community does find it a lot easier to critique Games-Workshop for their faults in game design, but they want no accountability for exploitation of that poor game design presented to them.

I have been thinking about this a little over the past few days and have been a bit hesitant to share it, because I suspect it won't be a very popular idea. I am going to preface that I fully believe that a more balanced product needs to be issued to the players. Perhaps switch to new play testers or what have you. Glaring issues don't just sneak through, but have been allowed entry for some reason. It's not for me to speculate on. But a consistent and balanced product isn't an unreasonable expectation. Now, onto the unpopular idea. When do we think a point is reached where the player community needs to assume a level of responsibility and accountability? At some point we may come to a realization there is just a bad attitude within the player community. I have read a lot of people talk about how certain units are not chosen in various factions because they feel that by taking them you are placing yourself at a disadvantage. In response those units are ignored in favor of the more powerful option. These kind of choices lead to silly rules that were introduced yesterday. Sure, some units may not perform as well as others, that is obvious. However, if both players are bringing those units instead of just the "point and click" ones, I would have to assume it would lead to a better game with more diversity. More players would begin to explore the books more completely and find purposes for those lesser used units. Now, I am not saying you shouldn't play with your toys. I totally get that dragons are cool and an army of them is cool as an example. There is a certain level of maturity required for that type of player to recognize they may not be facilitating an enjoyable gaming experience. Unless I am reading into this thread too much, it seems the social contract for miniature war gaming has been breached. There is more emphasis on one person winning, in some cases, at all costs, rather than both players enjoying the game. I've been in this community since 5th edition and have experienced the good and the bad for over 20 years. The last 4-ish years I've noticed this seeping into the community. Now before people start to comment. I support you doing your hobby your way. Its why I'm mostly a hobbiest now and mainly game with friends. We get to control how our games are played. You spent your money how you wanted and invested time painting what you bought. That's great. I am happy you are here and in it.

Wow. That is astounding

I 100% agree with you on those. I think one of the problems with unit spamming was the removal of restrictions in army composition and that facilited an environment to just spam the most powerful units in any given battletome. I know a lot of people don't want to be limited by the rules on what you have to include, but perhaps there could be some merit to re-introduce the 0-1 rules for specific kinds of units. I mean, it would certainly break up unit spamming and introduce more diversity into the army compositions. I also miss unit roles and how they helped people build more balanced lists. The over simplification if the rules, feels like to me, was intended to remove ambiguity and limit rules debate. While in my group it has gone down, there are certain wargame elements I miss. One of them is cool abilities like killing blow, animosity or even stupidity. I know many people didn't, but I enjoyed having this random element added in that you have to react to for your army. I miss not being able to measure every little millimeter and having some guess work involved. When everyone is so precise with their measurements it feels to "gamey" to me. I want there to be more consequences from misjudged distances. Randomness is not a bad thing for the game. The terrain needs to play a bigger role for the games. I think they need to add a layer of complexity and interactivity. I'm building a campaign for my 40K group that has some added/modified rules and we are thinking about introducing them to our AoS games. These include rules for biomes, terrain feature special rules, deployment changes, assault/charge reactions, list restrictions etc. We wanted to encourage more unit diversity in our games as well as have elements that players cannot prepare for.

I have begun to accumulate some Maggotkin of Nurgle miniatures in the hopes to begin them in the fall. I only have about 28 Sylvaneth miniatures left to paint before they are all done (Battletome depending). However, before I can start Nurgle I need to get onto my Adeptus Custodes for a local narrative campaign I'm going to run.

That certainly does. Thank you for taking the time to share.

Ha ha! 😀 Thank you for sharing the image. This is exactly it. I see that and am instantly filled with regret I sold my swordmasters. I started to look on ebay to see about maybe getting 1 unit just to bring me back to the Tower of Hoeth. I know there is nostalgia there with the swordmasters, but I have 0 regrets for selling my IDK and NH because there is nothing like the above to create emotional attachment or help me build a narrative in my imagination. As Kaleb was saying those older books really were packed with lore even though they were shorter. They also included a lot of recycled stories, but there was enough creativity in there for it to not matter. I'm thinking about the way you would build Lord's and Heroes in the WFB days now and wondering how great that could be applied to AoS. I mean, the basic structure is there anyways. Just imagine if a Runefather could select 100 points of runic items but a Runeson was limited to 50 points just as an example. Or, even a Treelord Ancient with 100 points of magic items and a Branchwraith with 50 points. Talk about the actual variety you'd see again. Gosh I miss that lol. The 40k lore and themes flooding each of the recent codeci has the embers starting to glow. I've already started to build a sort of "choose your own adventure" narrative campaign and I cannot wait to get some terrain painted for it ( follow the ToP march pledge for future updates). My hope is when the Sylvaneth book comes out I will be just as excited for them to be on the table as I am about my Custodes and my friends armies in 40k. This is the primary reason why I hope they bring out some Path to Glory support in the future and bring back the Anvil of Apotheosis in the GHB 2022.

Please allow me to add to the praise. Wow, do you ever gave some talent. It doesn't seem to matter if it's Lumineth, Sylvaneth or Nighthaunt, the colour choices and your style just match the miniatures perfectly. Excellent work.

How are you doing the darker red? Some pictures it almost looks metallic and I am really digging it.

I agree whole heartedly with you JS. I am also OK with the core rules as well. It has added a bit more interaction, cleaned things up but still needs a few small tweaks. The Path to Glory system has fostered my creativity when I look at the possibilities on how I'd want to collect new armies. I think there is a lot of elements to be really excited for at a base level. I think, much like yourself, the creativity and originality has felt minimized in the individual Battletomes so far. For myself, this is where 3rd Edition is really falling flat. Please keep in mind I am not a competitive or tournament player and there is an obvious bias about to follow. I get the sense that the louder and more vocal group of tournament/competitive player base has had an unfortunate impact on how GW has been designing rules. It is almost as if they have become a little gun shy because of the risk of social media or "influencer" lashback. The company still has a responsibility to their shareholders and negative media/news will play some kind of role. I rather enjoyed the smaller fun rules that made war scrolls unique, even if they were sometimes forgotten. It would be nice for the competitive players to remember that GW never forced them to spend their money on an army and it was the individuals choice to spend their money. Is it frustrating? It sure is, I've had an Eldritch Council and Order Draconis army removed from the game. It was annoying, but those were the models I chose to collect. I've been a Sylvaneth player for a few years now. The strength, or lack thereof, of the units has never left me with a feel I'm putting myself at a disadvantage when playing. It is mode about trying to solve a problem using different tools and just having fun while doing it. Perhaps by keeping that in mind there would be less complaining about everything being "nerfed". Instead of just wanting to play with the strongest stuff, maybe just be a little more creative with what is presented. I would love to see units have rules that match their narrative, but that ship feels like it was sunk. Mini rant over. As for the actual Battletomes, GW does need to do a better job filling them out. What do moat of us do when we get them? We flip through the pages and look at the art. Add in an extra 4 to 8 pieces of full page art to excite the fans and show the armies different sub factions in art form. How cool would it have been in the Fyreslayers book for a new art piece of the Lofnir lodge? How about a full page depicting a soulscryer with a few units of namarti reavers behind enemy lines from the briomdar enclave? The art is an interesting and evocative way to get people excited or even pick a new army and theme it. I remember back in the 5th edition high elf book a sweet picture of a swordmaster of hoeth. That piece inspired me to build an army from Hoeth and had the swordmasters as my favorite unit for years. The other area of the current Battletomes that is really in need of an infusion is the actual narrative. Where are the short stories that guide you to understand the armies or even characters in them? Write 3 or 4 proper stories to fill in the gaps in the gaps to showing their way of war. Once again calling back to my trusty 5th edition high elf book, we have the Battle of Finuval Plains. How amazing was that story? Did it illustrate how incredible Tyrion and Teclis were? Heck yeah it did. Where is my story about Elethaiel the Arch-Revenant leading a sylvaneth Heartwood Glade into a Nurgle infested area to kill a Harbinger of Decay and begin purifying the forest? How about one of Glumglogg and his Big Yellerz ambushing a Slaanesh host? These elements are what I really miss in Age of Sigmar that WHFB Army Books had. It is just a really big missed opportunity to give really define the setting, motives and characters for each faction. Plus as an added bonus it give a lot more value for the cost that comes along with the books.

March is going to be an easy month.The goal is the following: Build 12 Kurnoth Hunters, paint 1 Branchnymph and paint up an MDF terrain kit (TT Combat Ork Tower).

February was completed! Feeling pretty satisfied about this and brings my Sylvaneth up to 2500 points painted.

Is there a "salt rub thread" where posters can go and complain about incomplete rules shown by GW? The frequency of it in the rumor thread really is becoming exhausting at this point. Back to the partial rules reveal .... I think this could be the change that gets me on board to start a Fyreslayers army. I have found the Lofnir magmadroth artwork to be quite evocative in the previous Battletomes. Now that they can become battle line I am certainly tempted. The little snippet for their breath weapon seems pretty cool and on point for the purpose of clearing large units. Looking forward to what the rest of their attack profiles do. As a narrative driven gamer I am enjoying a lot of these 3rd Edition changes towards more thematic army builds in each faction.

Drycha is finished, but her base remains.

Second unit of Spite-Revenants is nearly done as is Drycha. I wasn't sure how I liked Drycha at first, but she is really growing on me. Just need to finish her arms and their bases.

A few years ago my friends and switched to 1500 points for both AoS and 40K. We have not looked back since. We have found it adds more versatility and allows for more experimentation with units. The games are faster, challenging and way more fun. More people play this game as a past time rather than just as something competitve. If I have 3 hours to play, I'd rather play 2 or 3 games with different outcomes and both parties get to enjoy themselves. In my opinion, I think it's better than playing 1 game where it could leave a sour taste behind. 1500 points also gives you list variety still which introduces a different level of tactics and skills to learn as your army general. Plus, how much more diversity on your shelves can you have if you are playing smaller games? You can learn and paint different armies and perhaps discover a love for one you'd have otherwise missed. Personally, I'd like to see the game switch in this direction and cater more to the "narrative" or "open" play categories. Let tournament organizers establish their standards for competitive play and balance as they need to for their events. This can be through their own point adjustments, rule changes, etc. They just place it into their tournament packs and good to go.

You are a visionary after my own heart. I'm loving your creations so much.

Hello and welcome to the Evergreen Glade. This is going to be a showcase of terrible pictures featuring my budding Sylvaneth army. I have been inspired by the narrative for my miniatures. For example, the Free Spirits were planted in the blood sap so I have painted them to have red leaves. The Outcasts are deliberately painted to look different to emphasize their lore. I will try and add some narrative as the army continues to grow. I hope to learn more about miniature photography as the project continues to unfold.