zilberfrid

Valkia is one, but the Khorne cultists that were just revealed for 40k are mixed as well. The Iron Golem also was somewhat Khorne themed and mixed. I'd think a new set for either would also be mixed.

That does sneak up on Ogres and Gnoblars, but they could just lean into that.

It could be that Khorne consists of sexy buff men and women in a loincloth, whereas Slaanesh consists of buff sexy men and women in a loincloth! (edit: I think both factions will look great and will be very distinct because the design team is great, but mostly naked sexy people are in both of their portfolios)

I think it's bad that the last armies only have half a year of play with a battletome written for that edition. This is a problem of GW's own making. I'd say a battletome in the first two years of the edition, and extra models (more than just another infantry hero that didn't make the cut before) in the next four Warscroll in box and downloadable, plus books that give extra options without being a requirement to play the original battletome if you want. Yes four, a three year edition rotation is nonsense. Note that I don't play AoS because of a few different reasons, and book depreciation speed is a significant part of that.

I don't care about rules and don't buy infantry heroes, so a book+ hero is no release for me.

Hi and welcome! I love me some orcs, I don't have many GW ones, just the Black Orcs, Kommando's and a few swamp orcs, but I love their style Not sure if you're looking for ideas, but I like how Aeons does Ork skin, grabbing random greens every time. You could do that cheaper by always mixing your greens. There's a lot of skin in Savage Orruks!

I agree you want the battletomes out early in the edition. So if it's 6 years and all battletomes are done in the first three, you have at least three years of play with a battletome actually made for the edition. The rest can be extra models and or campaign books, but it's weard that people accept playing most of the game with a ruleset only partly compatible with itself.

Ah, I did not know that. I haven't been well in the loop in 3rd. For the "main book" I did mean "battletome", I'll edit. I don't think series like Broken Realms should be a requirement to play with the rules in the existing battletome. That's what errata are for. This is not saying they can't add extra options, but they should not invalidate existing options.

I'm quickly going to address this from my (not OP's) point of view. 1) This is not the first time the release schedule comes up, I have read it quite a few times, and I had issues with it as well. 2) An important thing in an army is how it plays, and whether that intention is realised in the rules. This has nothing to do with WAAC. I do agree that the look and feel of an army is more important than its rules, but then I stopped using the AoS ruleset. 3) I'm not sure, but I think campaign books overwrote rules in the existing battletomes, which means you'd have to buy it to keep playing the same army. If not, it's all good. 4) It would be nice if terrain was more consistent in availability and rule support. Quite a few things have had rules for only a short time before they were removed. 5) Old World teasing could very well put people out of diving into AoS, especially with its denser ruleset in 3. 6) I agree this isn't that much of a point, especially the "why is this set cheaper than the hilariously overpriced Infantry hero" bit. 7) This is a "GW isn't doing much to hype up AoS on their steaming service" bit. And that's important. 40k lives on lore and hype, so if GW ignores lore and hype for AoS, that's not helping the influx of new players. 8 ) Agreed here. 9) Partly agree. FB still has quite a few users, and for some games it's a good way to speak with the writers (Frostgrave, Stargrave, Rangers especially). Still not something GW can fix.

Two of them could fall in with Squig riders (those riding the bouncy balls), though with some work, I think you can put a few more of them on squigs. You could also use them to double a box of Stabbas/Shootas or Fanatics. Or just use them as a nice painting project to give away to kids.

For pump wagons, the Snotling Blood Bowl team is brilliant and has two of them. I don't even see it as a Blood Bowl team per sé, just a designer making characterful snotlings and BB was the only logical place to put them.

It can both be too much and not enough. With the short lifecycle of an edition, some armies only get a battletome after over two years that fully fits that edition. That army is not getting support. On the other hand, there are yearly GHB's, campaign books that impact multiple armies and a whole new edition every three years, which feels overwhelming and leads to rules bloat. That could be seen as too much support, but I'd describe it as too many requirements. I don't care about the rules part of the game, and model-wise, it has been a very slow edition. I really don't care about infantry-sized heroes (I think they are WAY overpriced), which leaves only the swamp orcs, Stormcast and two boxes of Sylvaneth in the entire edition so far. EDIT: I have purchased one rulebook per game of AoS I have played. That's not a brilliant score.

I do not have soiaf minis, but my goblin warband (Zarbag's with a small addition), Tzeench warband (based on Eyes of the Nine with a few extras) and Freeguild warband are chosen quite often when I bring them all. Plus you need quite a few monsters. I myself prefer the Frostgrave minis, mostly for their variety.

AoS models are quite popular for Frostgrave. Most of this is about the game, not the models. I don't like GW's games but they can make good models. The only issue with that is that 2022 does not have a lot of new ones.

I think the mushroom hats would make for an excellent sculpting practice, I made quite a few small ones and found it easy. For the wings, Nurgle is Larry's counterpart, perhaps bloatfly or Mortarion wings?

Fungus Leshy is another term that gives nice mushroom people. The Veiled Lady would make a nice Larry:

This looks brilliant, and I would if I played! Trolls have a good tie to forests, so that works well in theme for me. It's just that their Trolldomur manifests a bit differently (Trolldomur, or Troll-doings, is a term for magic in (iirc) old Norse). Perhaps "Larry's" wings could be branches with leaves?

Double time between editions. Either halve (or less) mortal wound output, or give everything a mortal wound save. Shooting in melee must be harder. Single turn charges across the whole field should not be possible. Shooting through cover must be harder. Halve cost of battletomes. Make infantry heroes more survivable.

I printed all warscrolls and showed the Regiment batallion and Freeguild faction stuff in one of my few games. Didn't stop that player from marching his Keepers straight into a lot of overwatch fire and complaining.

It looks a lot better with terrain

Oh, and if you can't get anyone to play, Both Frostgrave and Stargrave have solo campaigns, and Rangers of Shadowdeep is even built for that.

I'd use a different system with the same models. Something like Onepage rules or Oathmark. If there's a new edition that fixes all your grievances, your models are ready for it. AoS is a great setting, and most models are great as well. I agree the first few seasons of Underworlds warbands were great value, but this has been rectified. I no longer recommend them to new painters because they value infantry heroes way too much (that single khemist just isn't worth that). Many of the issues you have with AoS won't be solved if you switch to 40k, and most armies would need a lot of time, money and effort investment to try. Though the Nundam and knight battleboxes looks tasty.

I'm not sure if you did, Nameless One, but you need not feel bad for not completing something that's your hobby! That just means you can enjoy your minis for longer.

This month I focus on painting decorations for the family. They get fancy nativity scenes/christmas goblins/santas, and I don't have to bother storing it.

Finished halloween ornament