NinthMusketeer

Dam straight that AoS has too many elves!

It is worth pointing out that we have a really diverse array of mortal inhabitants of the realms, complete with a variety of cultures from different realms and regions, with different interpretations of faith and manners of combat--for Chaos. Most of the realms are still held by Chaos; all of those Warcry bands represent regular people just as much as inhabitants of the free cities. Obviously not quite the same thing as the topic at hand, but not entirely separate either.

Hm, this seems at odds with your response from last page talking about cities being inclusive to different variations and archetypes. Why suddenly be exclusive when it comes to religion? Not that I find either opinion to be anything but respectable, they just seem to go opposite directions to me.

I would love for cities to stay completely mixed-race as a faction, but for individual cities to cut back on it. For example Greywater can't take Wanderers, Settler's Gain can't take Duardin, Living City can't take Ironweld, and several others. It doesn't (and shouldn't) be every city but I think a tool GW could use to add subfaction identity is not only defining what they get but what they lose. Given such units are often not favored anyways due to the subfaction buffing different things it isn't going to be a significant burden either. Mixed-race units would be tricky to figure out mechanically, but one aspect of GW's rule design I have absolute confidence in is their creativity when it comes to adapting thematic elements so I'd bet they could pull it off well. But my absolute dream for CoS is city-specific upgrade kits that add unifying elements to duardin, aelf, and human models. Particularly if coupled with the broader idea of realm-themed accessory kits that any army can use.

So I'm trying to track down one of the free short stories that was posted on WarCom as part of the Broken Realms promotion--the one that is a series of letters from a scholar in Settler's Gain. Anyone know where I could find them, or are they lost to the void?

2.5 is up! Changelog: General Changes -Exalted follower tables are in! These tables of extra-strong follower choices cost 2 renown to roll on -Finished the Rewards overhaul; Keyword rewards now stick to central themes and are mechanically straightforward, leaving the more eccentric options for allegiance rewards. Several allegiance rewards have been adjusted to better tie in with allegiance abilities and/or theme of the army, the Light and Heavy tables had some alteration to their qualifiers as well as some minor changes, and a number of new reward options have been added. -Allegiance rewards are now organized into separate pages based on Grand Alliance -Added an additional glory for winning an FFA match -Added a bonus for having extra glory in the final battle of a Rampage Campaign -Unique enhancements now have a blanket rule exempting them from needing to roll randomly -The Heroic Rewards rule has been expanded to include any unit that is Single on its pitched battle profile Warband Table Changes -Daughters of Khaine and Nighthaunt have been updated with their new battletomes! -All warband tables have been gone over with particular attention to the overall goal of getting players out of their comfort zone from time to time without being a pain or denying thematic build options. -Sylvaneth and Skaven were not altered as they will be completely rehashed after the imminent battletome release. -Most 2-follower starting options can now be found on the Exalted follower tables as well -A number of armies have had their hero retinue charts merged into regular ones, helping with flexibility and enhancing the element of choice within a given result. -Retinue tables are now clearly labelled with their respective costs in full -Order Warband Tables document has been split into main and aelf -Cities of Sigmar have been reorganized with greater table flexibility to accommodate the unique nature of the army and its themes. Intuitive sorting puts cool units in left column, lame ones on the right. -CoS have also received a buff to retinues & adjutants to boost the performance of its ‘small’ warlord options. -Celestial Hurricanum removed, Anointed on Phoenix added with the caveat that it cannot be Living City. -Hallowheart now requires 1 renown to select so as to even the playing field with other cities -Chaos gained a new optional rule allowing marked coalition units to benefit from allegiance abilities -Khorne’s basic retinue table has been reworked into more ‘thematic’ categories that are very intuitive -Liege-Kavalos moved to Grand Warlord (up from normal) -With the addition of the hero options the SGL retinue table was split back into Flesh and Bone categories -Killaboss on Gnashtooth gained another starting follower -Added a special mercenary option for Ogor Maneaters.

Realms tremble and armies march in the Era of the Beast, as Warlords summon exalted followers to their side... Road to Renown 2.5 update coming soon!

I am interpreting the question to include the whole Fantasy lineup that is still in print, as opposed to only kits released during AoS. Skaven Clanrats. The kit is perfect. Any additional options or detail would drive up the monetary cost on a cheap chaff unit, any less and there wouldn't be any personality or customization. Each rat is one body, a shield, and a right arm. Extremely simple, which is fantastic because it is very much a unit one needs dozens and dozens of. Additional posing would mean more time working on very expendable dudes and be lost in the crowd anyways, while the right arm being a full ball joint gives creative types plenty to work with. The kit literally could not be made better in any way. It is perfect.

Being a long-time Nurgle player I can say it is the best GW has ever done in making a Nurgle force play and feel thematically like a Nurgle force. The marriage of theme and mechanical design is perfect, it is a really great tome. The only real weak point are the completely schizophrenic enhancements, but that is rendered a minor quibble next to how great the allegiance is.

Totally agreed about the varying damage thing, it was a chore. But for me... why does the guy who is explicitly cursed to never be the general and be unable to issue commands not have an ability preventing him from being picked as the general or issue commands!? And who the hell came up with the new hexwrath fluff? Did someone lose a bet?

So I just finished reading the new NH tome, wanted to stop by and express my sympathy, seriously. It isn't even about how strong the army is but rather... they just sucked the soul out of the warscrolls. Most of the fun, flavorful mechanics are gone and the army is left with loads bland mechanics only sporadically interrupted by something interesting. The fluff is nonsensical, disjointed, self-contractory and mismatches with the rest of the lore so badly I have a hard time even seeing it as cannon, let alone how poorly it matches up with what the units actually do in-game. I'm glad the charge mechanic got a new version that works (and works well) and that NH got the inspiring presence denial they always should have had, but it just really sucks that the depth, narrative, and theme of the faction was hacked up to get it.

Every army book in Skaven's history has been an erratic shotgun of OP, UP, crazy rules and weird one-off factors seen no where else. I'd be disappointed at anything different tbh.

Having gone through the DoK and NH tomes, I want to give credit to GW from stepping up the quality when it comes to enhancement options. Particularly for artifacts and command traits, there are far fewer options that are either completely awful or obviously superior. Still a few hot items and duds, but the playing field is much more level as compared to earlier 3rd edition tomes. Glad to see the improvement.

'Run with the treasure' style scenarios can be a lot of fun, the key is to make sure there are restraints in place to prevent cheesing; cannot teleport, cannot move further than X", cannot use extra move mechanics. Otherwise there are all manner of ways to break the scenario, even by something as simple as having a hero with 24" movement grabbing it. Some specific notes: -Is it the 'relic', the 'artifact', or the 'objective'? I see all three terms being used in different places. -Players will want specific measurements for the objective markers and territories, even if it is just '1/4 the width of the table' or the like -"Heroes within 3” of one of the original 3 objective markers make take this action." doesn't have a gameplay meaning in AoS; there is nothing on what an action is or how/when to take one. -What happens if neither player controls the relic at the end of the game? What if the relic has not even been found at the end of the game? -Some abilities trigger off of proximity to an objective marker, do they trigger off proximity to a hero carrying the relic? -Multiple armies can have heroes on these objectives at the top of turn 1 and still be able to move said heroes in the movement phase, which should be taken into consideration. -Any faction could move a hero onto the relic round 1, go second on round 2 and having grabbed the relic (on round 1 or 2) run towards their own edge, then double-turn and get off the board turn 3, which should be taken into consideration. -What points levels do you want this scenario to accommodate? At 1000 points (and 1500 to a good extent) victory is pretty much handed to the first player who gets a 300+ point hero to grab the relic, bar particularly slow/squishy instances. -It may be worthwhile to completely disallow heroes from leaving the board edge on round 1 or 2, because chances are it isn't going to have been a good game if it ends that early. -The smart way to play this scenario is to let the enemy go first if they can only reach one objective, since statistically they will most likely fail and then allow the second player to reliably find the relic on one of the other two. This is totally fine as a gameplay dynamic, but I would say it is probably something to tell new players about upfront so they don't get 'tricked' into a feels-bad experience.

Could even theme it off what upgrades they are getting--if they want a defensive stat boost they need to be subject to enemy offense (survival optional), if they want a boost to spellcasting they need to cast a bunch of spells, etc.

Honestly (and this is going to sound like me tooting my own horn but hear me out) my best suggestion is to use the Road to Renown system I wrote instead (see my signature). It isn't similar to 3rd edition Path to Glory (it is based on 1st-2nd edition PtG) but is straightforward, flexible, and importantly comes with campaign structure laid out ready-to-use. I could extol my perspective on the virtues of RtR over PtG but what makes me bring it up as a suggestion is really that last part; Road to Renown has an inherent campaign structure while Path to Glory does not. Having originally come from house rules I used when running leagues in my local community I can certainly vouch for it being enjoyable in that respect, though obviously community cultures are different and it is a rather subjective topic.

Thank you! I am always so happy to hear from people who got enjoyment out of this! As for the second part... To me the 3rd edition's Path to Glory is GW having gone to a plot of land and set up a solid foundation for a home only to park a trailer on it instead of building. There is the framework for a great system, but it just isn't used to do anything. Contrasting against Crusade I believe the core of the issue is wanting PtG armies to be compatible with Matched Play. Because of that everything must fit through the lens of being the same as or readily adapted to a Matched game. Territories only affect forces in a way that can be easily ignored for Matched, quests are limited by what someone could do in a Matched game, rewards are limited to what won't disrupt a Matched game. The latter are all one-use abilities because in Matched a player simply doesn't use them, as opposed to multi-use abilities or stat adjustments which would meaningfully alter gameplay. Problem being that altering gameplay in a meaningful way is the point of having a progression system in the first place. The closest thing to actual depth in progression is non-general heroes getting a command trait at 15 xp... and that is all the progression heroes have outside of maybe being able to add a mount. The warlord, the central figure tying your entire force together, has no progression at all. Meanwhile, Crusade has a treasure trove of unique items, upgrades, rewards, and penalties that can be applied to modify units to a significant degree. Armies have their own bespoke Crusade mechanics that affect gameplay beyond some one-use ability, and even the items that are one-use generally have far more interesting effects. Obviously they make an effort to balance them, but that is clearly secondary to rule-of-cool cinematic stuff--which is exactly what narrative content is supposed to be. It reminds me of a post I made several months back responding to a player who expressed wanting the Anvil of Apotheosis in Matched: To me 3rd's PtG feels like a system in which that has happened, where the exploitable-but-exciting mechanics have been cut in favor of sterilized options easily set aside should one be playing Matched. I am a big proponent of balance, but I also understand how in Narrative Play that is secondary to cramming in as much cool stuff as possible. There are other issues in PtG (breakable scenarios and bias towards elite units come to mind) but the system could potentially be fun despite those things. Meanwhile, as long as the design mentality is slaved Matched compatibility it will be fundamentally crippled due to the inverted priorities between that and Narrative. Which is a dam shame on both a big-picture level and personally, as I would really rather be adding stuff to a system that works than have to write my own to replace one which doesn't.

Honestly I've always found that first and foremost having an army that one likes the look/theme of is key. Without that everything else will seem bland. Beyond that I would say to look at the generic double for a warband--warbands with generalized, easy-to-use doubles are going to be easier to play and feel engaged with.

So doing some work on a friend's model happened to notice that the little tab on the bloodthirster box has this and it is pointless but awesome: Edit: so the image is right side up on my end dunno why the forum is flipping it!

Realized I should probably mention; I was really excited to dig into the Thondia content and add what I could to RtR... but there's nothing to add. The Anvil of Apotheosis is a reprint, the incarnate rules are impossible to balance, and the path to glory stuff is as bland as the rest of it. A dam shame The fluff is great though, so it would be good for inspiring/constructing a narrative; I'll be trying that myself in a couple months.

Eh, that is three sentences out of numerous pages. Including them is just good writing, because both in-universe and out there are strong similarities that would lead to people thinking it was one of those things. But it may be that the difference is only super clear to one who is versed in AoS fluff overall; there is a distinct manner in which Khornate entities are portrayed that is dissimilar to how the incarnate is written. It may simply be that it seems Khornate to those inexperienced with Warhammer fluff, but that is still a valid criticism. Worth noting there are many out there who want to dislike Warhammer lore and have decided they do not like it before they even started reading. When looking for reasons to justify a pre-existing feeling on the incarnate that element is the low-hanging fruit. But I would hesitate to jump to that conclusion since, as mentioned before, the differences are not immediately obvious.

Titan Forge has a number of 'counts-as' armies with analogous minis to the associated WHFB army, including... -Pirate Ogor Kingdoms -Chinese-Japanese Empire -Vampire Counts but they are undead Orcs & Goblins -Mechanical Dwarfs (and Chaos Dwarfs) Some highlights include ogors riding stonehorn-sized crabs, daimyo riding an imperial dragon, vampire orc on zombie wyvern, and mechanical bull-headed giant. There's a lot more tucked away in their lineup too

I'm not sure if he's being sarcastic, is he being sarcastic?

Missed opportunity to name it "El Krondo" I'll see myself out...

Daemons are fundamentally different in that they are invaders to the mortal plane; they are native to the Realm of Chaos. An Incarnate, on the other hand, is very much from the Realms themselves. As a sidenote, the Krondspine Incarnate doesn't quite radiate anger; it radiates savagery and predation. From a conceptual level that nuance is largely subtle but the way it actually manifests in the fluff is very different from Khornate influence.