NinthMusketeer

I am very happy to hear that!

With the formal release of Lumineth, Order warband tables have been updated to add them to the lineup!

Yes, immediately. And I would vote to have it at GHB quality so it will be cheap and not a collector's item. We want more people to buy it--at $40+ the main people buying it will already be lore junkies anyways.

In a technical RAW sense you can. However the RAI is very, very clear in addition to the benefit being minimal. Should GW clarify the rules in the future to make it such that music and standard must indeed be different you will be stuck with a unit that now lacks one of them. Finally, it is something many would consider bad sportsmanship, though obviously this can vary with the community. I would recommend against it.

I feel that it can all be simplified to: what an army CAN do vs what an army WILL do. The former is information freely available to anyone with access to the army's rules. It is polite to provide this information, and should at the least be made available. GW themselves have made clear in the recent GHB that this should be the case. To be asked on it and then specifically not provide it? I respect the OP for walking away from that game and absolutely encourage anyone to do the same. What an army WILL do involves in-game decisions. This falls into tactics, strategy, and one has no responsibility to reveal such information (bar learning games of course). I would go as far as to say such information may even be unwelcome as the opponent could want to figure it out on their own. Unit "gobnobber" with move X targeted with spell "movebuff.exe" becomes buffed to movement 2X. It has an ability that allows it to run & charge. This makes its threat range when buffed 2X+6+2d6, because a run move can be made an automatic 6 with the universal command ability. I am casting movebuff.exe on gobnobber so that it will have sufficient movement to get around an opponent's front line and charge squishies behind it. The first two sentences are what the unit CAN do, but I put the second one in there to have an example of assumed knowledge; it is fair to assume an opponent already knows or can deduce this information. This would be something it is OK not to share, because it is based on the core rules that every player is expected to know in order to, ya know, play! That same reason is also what makes it something important to point out in learning games, though, and it can be helpful to do so in casual games as well. The third sentence is what the unit WILL do. Outside a learning game I see no responsibility to share this information, even if asked. In casual games, especially with a more skilled player against a less skilled one, it could be nice to point out--but that is a matter determined by context. Anyways, to reiterate to the OP; good job walking away. It can be agonizing to get prepared for a game only to turn around at the last second, but I really feel you did the right thing for everyone involved.

Stabbas are likely to always have a place for being extremely points-efficient when properly buffed. Not only are the stabbas themselves very cheap (and numerous--likely to be holding whatever objective they are on) but the stuff that buffs them is cheap and it buffs them significantly. Plus netters simply kick ass.

Just wanna say, I dig the new White Dwarf rules. Some cool support for Squig armies without pushing things into OP territory. As for the issue of Grot heroes getting sniped; Grot heroes have always been easily sniped in AoS. The solution is to take more of them. Max out those hero slots for da little WAAAAGH!!

Hm... while Behemat himself was killed during the RGW, he was a godbeast and a particularly significant one at that. I could see a conventional death heaving trouble sticking, especially if his primal magics were tickled by the Necroquake. Also let us lore junkies snicker at those poor unknowing ones who will inevitably make suggestions like 'could there be a godbeast model coming in the future!?' They have no concept of Behemat!

I made a 'second edition' of sorts for Path to Glory that reigns in the balance concerns considerably as well as bulking out the options. (See the Road to Renown thread in this very subforum for more.) As for general narrative advice: -Set up a league with prize support, none of it for winning. Best painted, best background, best story, best rivalry, the possibilities range from common to quite unique. People already want to win inherently, there is no need for prize support to offer further incentive. -Free for all games. FFA has a strong degree of self-balancing because players with strong armies get ganged up on (and when they complain you can always respond 'bring a less threatening force next time'). -Not the greatest technique... but it helps if you have a broken matched play army in reserve. Like top-tier tourney broken. Bust it out when people start min-maxing too hard. If you are not up to it you can also get a trusted friend to play this role. The key to making this work is putting the army away, or handicapping it, when going up against players that do not min-max. And don't be subtle about that; let people see that bringing toned-back armies gets rewarded with toned-back games. -Design your league such that people have some degree of control over their matchups, allowing them to avoid armies they are certain to lose against. Something I have found works quite well is a system where people can play any number of games in a given 'round' of the league and choose which result they want to carry forward. Suddenly the pressure is off to make every battle a win. -Utilize a dismissive attitude towards OP builds. Many times I have seen players with a optimized army be proud of it and seek recognition in conversation, even going so far as to brag about how powerful their army is. When the reaction is to shrug and say "yeah whatever" then turn and praise some other army for how fluffy and well-rounded it is that sends a message. -I don't know what country you are from but I will say if it is the US keep in mind you may need some persistence and practice before it pays off. US culture is extremely competitive and not everyone realizes how toxic that is. But usually once they 'see the light' of realizing that winning has no bearing on one's self worth they like the feeling. Good luck!

That is a typo, thank you for catching it! And glad you are enjoying it!

Yes and yes. Rather than requiring two choices elite followers cost 1 choice plus 1 renown. Because 1 follower choice can be exchanged for 1 renown, this means that 2 choices can be spent to gain an elite unit (though this is somewhat less efficient). Also note that "any eligible table" means you are not restricted to a single page; were someone to use Cities of Sigmar they could find themselves taking units from the Stormcast tables (following the normal restrictions for the allegiance), a Blades of Khorne player could generate followers from the Slaves to Darkness tables (provided they took the mark of Khorne), and so on.

Thanks! The charts should have no problems being used with conventional Path to Glory rules; gameplay elements affecting the balance of champions & followers are the same between PtG and RtR. I also have a big update in the works which will overhaul (and replace) reward charts, add Lumineth, and perhaps most excitingly incorporate the Anvil of Apotheosis rules for designing custom champions!

I think 500 points works fine, just that both players need to be on the same page with how strong their army will be. This is true for Matched Play in general, of course, but the further from 2000 points one gets the more true that becomes. A flat ban on summoning is not a bad idea either, especially considering the non-scaling nature for several army summoning mechanics (Nurgle will summon the same at 500 as it will at 2000, for example). The other restriction I would put in place is limiting maximum unit sizes so you do not end up with a case of the army being one big unit + buffer/healer.

WTB Ironjawz 'Blademongers' that are loaded up with extra weapons and have a ranged throwing attack, but if they use it too much it starts to lower their melee attacks because they run out of blades to throw!

At this point it is clear to me why you find the AoS fluff so vague; you have not read it. I'm out.

When Glymmsforge was overrun and Katakros released, they can't just 'rebuild' him back into his box. When realmgates are corrupted or destroyed, that can't be reversed. Shyish is now slowly being pulled into the Nadir, no amount of walls will fix that. I could equally say 'none of those planets are irreplaceable, they can just rebuild on another planet or space station, or maybe there is a near-identical planet a system over should they fall.' Also, you never did provide an example of a setting that is fully fleshed-out.

How is that different from a fight between Abaddon and Calgar? We know from the onset both of them are going to somehow survive, at least AoS allows some characters to actually go down in combat without needing to invent some plot contrivance to save them.

No, that just is not true. The AoS fluff often goes into a good amount of detail as to why specific locations are important. Hell, the CoS battletome is essentially 'cities that are important: allegiance abilities'.

Wait, earlier you said this: "Except 40k has very critical planets we know to be unique, that isn't the case for AoS because it's intentionally poorly defined to give its writers as much freedom as possible." Literally replace "40k" with "AoS" and "planets" with "cities" to have you perfectly destroy your own argument. You are telling me that was not sarcastic? You say AoS is poorly defined to give writers freedom, which is again the same as 40k; the overwhelming majority of planets we know nothing about!

Do you have an example of such a setting we can compare to?

See, that was not what I was doing. At all. Now you are just bending it into something else and making this toxic, for no reason. If you disagree, just disagree. If you don't understand, just say so. There is nothing wrong with that. I think maybe Grdaat's take-it-all-literally responses may be throwing things out of context, too. It is one of the problems with sarcasm in a text-based discussion. Rest assured that once jokes are put aside no one actually believes that a bit of fluff is literally analogous to the price of miniatures, that the people of Greywater literally eat invasive plant growth to keep it away, or that fluff-skeptics literally care about the refraction rate of Aqshian crystal.

I was talking to him specifically. You seemed to understand it well enough for a sarcastic response!

No big deal if you don't understand my argument, but that does not make it fallacious.

I have seen the argument raised many times of 'why should I care about this city/nation/whatever when the realms are so big?' And I raise two points. The first is reality. Why care about your local game store going out of business when it is only one speck of the larger hobby? Why care about the price of GW miniatures when it is only a tiny piece of your budget? It all ties to a larger, very open ended question of "why does anything matter?" The second point I raise is 40k. A single planet in the galaxy means even less than a single city in AoS, yet this issue is one that rarely raised for 40k as a setting. Because when people enjoy the setting, they find a reason to care.

I would definitely check the Gloomspite & CoS battletomes for faction-specific battletomes to see if they apply. Using the Open War scenario generator (by picking appropriate options) could be useful for filling gaps.