NinthMusketeer

Yeah darkoath heroes should come with the undivided keyword. Cultists too, for the matter.

People say Starcraft was originally a 40k game a lot too, and that isn't true.

Ah, glad that's cleared up!

Hm, I logged out and tried the link myself and it still works. Maybe try clearing your internet cookies? Or maybe someone more tech-savvy than I can chime in.

Aight. They just need an eratta which lets them take Ravager artifacts then.

So I've been meaning to come ask the community but kept forgetting; Idolators don't have an artifact table, right? I really want to have missed some detail where they get one and aren't limited to just realm artifacts.

The main rules document has been updated to 1.5c, with some small changes to using the Anvil of Apotheosis as well as formatting changes to hopefully make it more readable. Also incorporation of the Anvil of Death from the most recent White Dwarf.

They don't have to have knowledge--they just have to make a warscroll for it. Also out of curiosity, where was that confirmation? Whatever interaction that came from could have some interesting hints.

Quick update; I do have the basics of the DoK & Slaanesh updates worked out but I am waiting on the two-week FAQs to clarify how some things work, since they could significantly affect functionality. Edit: Also, just did an update to the scenario WIP document with the current versions of Destructive Fonts and Pillager victory conditions.

I think it makes no sense for GW to change the scale or style for the WHOW. It would invalidate old guard who still have fantasy armies and royally ****** them off, considering this seems to be a project catering to such fans that would be counterproductive. Not to mention starting things off on a bad note, the negative feedback would not be good for a new side-game. But more importantly, by maintaining the scale they can have kits do doubly duty in both games. Every WHOW release also becomes an AoS release, and the number of players willing to buy that product grows massively. It is also a huge part of the line they could simply rebox with squares instead of needing entirely new kits for.

Arch Warlock is metal, it's even in the quote!

A cheesed out Fyreslayer army is exceedingly difficult to counter; one of the hardest armies in the game to counter when played properly. It'll also cost something in the $750 range and you will be more or less locked into one list. $500 of FEC will give you all you need to run a wide range of tourney or casual builds, including the extras needed for summoning.

Fyreslayers have a lot going against them beyond theme; -Tiny unit roster. Literally the army has three infantry units and the rest is heroes. -Lack of distinction. Said three infantry units all look very similar on the tabletop, and blend in with the foot heroes. -Price. Building a decent Fyreslayer army is absurdly expensive because those units have an insane cost relative to the number you need. On top of that their heroes have all gone direct only. The infantry NEED to be reboxed at a lower price per model to make the army a commercial success. This is almost certainly a case where GW pushed the prices beyond what the community would accept and ended up with less money than they would have had with lower prices. -Internal balance. Vulkite berzerkers exist for theme only, because hearthguard berzerkers do what they do but are massively better at it. The three-unit roster just dropped to two. The characters suffer similarly, especially with magmadroths largely being less effective than more stuff on foot. You basically end up with an army that has less than 10 viable choices to put on the table. To shoot customization in the foot further, certain heroes are basically mandatory to make the army work.

I don't know of any. I imagine it is a very niche situation possibly only related to a specific scenario.

Pst, it's 'Sons of Behemat'

I have really liked the three-ways-to-play categories, they are great for sorting different 'content bundles' to give an idea of what they will be good for. Obviously players are free to adapt things and be flexible, but at the same time matched is more structured--when people play matched they are generally using all of those rules without inclusion of other elements, and the rules are designed with that in mind. Open and narrative are generally more flexible and presented in a 'here is the tool and you can decide how to use it' fashion like the Anvil of Apotheosis. By having the divisions GW is able to neatly inform up about the design intent behind a given piece of content.

Once in a while I'll have a random one-off game that is matched, but on a week-to-week gaming bases (pre-covid) we were only doing narrative. We started off alternating between matched play and path to glory which lasted for one cycle before everyone agreed we wanted to just do path to glory leagues instead*. Once Warcry came out we shifted to alternating between PtG and Warcry campaigns. There's another guy who sometimes runs traditional matched play leagues in addition to the normal game night but they have never had the same kind of participation the narrative ones do. Most matched play happens during the short break between leagues or to do tourney practice if there is a big one coming up (SoCal Open and LVO). Transitioning away from matched was the best hobby decision I ever made since deciding to devote myself to Nurgle. So much less stress when I can look at all the imbalances, have a decent chuckle & shrug because they aren't something I have to deal with. *Each league I'd be adding a few more house rules to smooth out rough edges of the system, and that eventually evolved into Road to Renown which we have been using for some time now.

Well, truffle spam.

I agree. Mortal wounds are truffles. I will now refer to them as such.

I think we are pretty close; it isn't the concept, it is that it's been taken too far. I don't have a problem with that specific weapon option dealing mortals on 6s to hit, there are thematic and mechanical support for that. The issue is that this is still a dedicated combat unit that should be dealing damage with a reasonable amount of consistency with those two meter halberds. But no 6s means they can easily deal little to no damage, while a bunch of 6s can suddenly murder an enemy which really should have taken longer to kill. An attack on a 6 to hit does 2(!) MWs, while the weapon itself is no rend, 1 damage. A regular hit against even a 5+ save is only doing an average of 0.44 damage--I understand the 'critical hit' concept going on here but a 4.5 multiplier seems a bit much! Especially when the halberd part can supposedly cut a man in half. Shifting the damage balance more towards regular and away from mortal would be a good move IMO.

You are entirely correct. RtR exists after several years of building up house rules and changes to Path to Glory, and that only happened because the basic concept of PtG was so much fun. If GW had never created PtG I would never have had a starting point to work from.

The issue, as others have mentioned, is how it creates huge swings in damage output at random. Obviously it is a dice game and random happens, but 6s-to-hit-do-mortals skips two other rolls; the wound roll AND the save roll, making it exponentially more random than if it were on a 6 to wound. Plus a 6 to hit may not have wounded, but a 6 to wound was going to cause regular damage if it wasn't doing a mortal so it doesn't feel as bad for the person getting hit. I say this as a player who uses hearthguard 'zerkers with chainy bits, a unit where the majority of its damage output comes from 6s to hit. I can get that when it is on a unit where it thematically and mechanically works like spirit hosts, but it is weird for a slayer to have his damage almost entirely determined by if he gets a 6 to hit or not. A sidenote to all this is that in addition to MWs being oppressive (IMO of course) units that require MW damage to counter effectively are even worse though thankfully far more rare. But units like Bastiladons, Leviadons, and Spirit of Eltharion are so insanely difficult to put down with conventional means yet against MWs they just die. I understand strengths and weaknesses but that is pushing it too far.

@OP yup, more or less agree with everything you said.

Just as time and causality are relative within the Realm of Chaos, so are facts and truth relative upon the internet. Beasts of Chaos will always be terrible, regardless of how good they may be. It is an immutable reality and you court apocalypse by merely mentioning such a concept.

The minotaur/bullgor kit really suffers from the studio paint scheme; painting them as naked skin with patches of fur does not present the models nearly as well as a low-contrast scheme where the tufts are painted simply as particularly thick portions on a body covered in fur. I have found repeatedly that people like the kit much more (or at least, dislike it less) when that is the case. But regardless, GW can't cut Beasts of Chaos. Beastmen have always been the martyrs of the setting. While every faction has its ups and downs, no army has been so consistently bad for the entirety of its existence. Beastmen/BoC are not the army we need, but the one we deserve (or not the army we deserve but the one we need, I don't think anyone understood that line anyways). If they were to be cut another army would have to take up the mantle--there must always a 'the sucky one'. And that army would just become 'the new beastmen' anyways, so the legacy would live on. I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that Beasts of Chaos existing, and sucking, is a fundamental truth upon which Warhammer depends for its very existence. Were they to be truly cut, or worse--made good, then the game would fail, models would fall from the shelves and our homebrew characters would die piteous deaths.