OkayestDM

Unfortunately, they're always going to. Where there is something to complain about, people will complain. And they can get quite vitriolic about it. There's a statistic in business that people are 3 times more likely to complain about something than they are to speak well of it. This is true everywhere you go. You're never going to find a place where people don't complain. The trick is not to hyper-focus on it, or internalize it. You obviously have some investment in the armies that are being complained about. You've gotta step away from the negativity and not let it rule your head. This forum has great resources for players looking to learn about armies, and great people willing to help. I own several armies, including Ossiarch Bonereapers and Stormcast, and I'm currently collecting Lumineth Realmlords. Look elsewhere and you'll find no end of hate for each of those armies. I stick to this forum because - while there are those who complain about each of them - there's also a lot of people who are enthusiastic about them, and immersing yourself in that enthusiasm is good for the soul.

I feel like it would be a bad move to drop the audio drama before the faction proper, and it doesn't seem like a move GW would normally make. Then again, nothing's been normal this year . . . October looks to have a pretty tight schedule. They might be able to squeeze the Sons in, but it'd be a heck of a trick. The real question is how long before they start dropping lore articles. Not sure if it will help to determine the time-table, or make the waiting any easier, but at least it'd be something.

I friggin' love Decimators. I don't get a chance to use them often but - to go entirely opposite of the intention of this thread - there are few units that more perfectly fulfill the role they are meant to play. And now to get back on track, another unit that I often find disappointing are Bullgors. This one's a bit tricky, because on a good role they can flatten anything they come across, I just tend to feel like I don't get those good rolls nearly often enough.I love me my minotaurs, I just with they were 3+ to hit.

Yeah, the only reason I picked Retributors was because I like them a little more. I 100% agree that Prosecutors are much farther from their percieved function, probably more so than any other Stormcast unit.

I share the disappointment over Prosecutors, but the unit that has felt like the biggest letdown for me has always been Retributors. These guys should hit like a mack truck and be able to withstand incredible punishment. They just don't. Then Evocators came along and outclassed them in almost every way, adding insult to injury (I love Evocators, but I really want my Paladins to shine.)

Lol, I did appreciate the irony of the two contrasting threads. Some of the best battleline descriptions in the other thread came down to aesthetics and concept over function, which means that calling them good there but bad here doesn't necessarily create a conflict. And your right, most battleline can actually be good if piloted well, but there's an alarming disparity between the effort it takes to make some units good as compared to others. It is entirely possible to make liberators a pretty tough anvil if given the right support, but they're never going to hold a candle to Hearthguard Berserkers, who are also a much better hammer than Liberators will ever be, no matter how much you buff them. Units like Liberators are often considered a tax because they don't really seem to contribute anything relevant to a game, other than filling the bettleline requirement. They're slow, they don't have much offensive punch, they don't have the numbers to reliably secure objectives, and they're not particularly durable (unless you have the right hero and you're facing an enemy who doesn't have strong shooting, rend, or mortal-wound output, which is a lot less common these days.) In the end, the only reason most people take Liberators is because they're the cheapest option, which thus frees up more points for units that can reliably contribute to your victory. I don't think Battleline should be the best unit on your roster, but I think they need to bring something that makes you want to take them outside of just meeting the minimum requirements. In some armies they do, and in some they just don't. Everything I've just gone over is most relevant for competitive games, and there's always going to be units that are considered "hot garbage" in a competitive scene that are actually perfectly serviceable in a more casual game. That said, there are still some Battleline units that fall short of the mark, even in a casual setting.

Well that's the tricky part. Until I test it out I won't really know just how good everything is. +1 to bravery isn't a terribly exciting bonus, but over the course of a game can prove to be a big deal. The retreat and charge is where I think the money is at, particularly if combined with cavalry units, which typically do much better on the charge. As for the +1 to magic, I'm definitely open to other options. The idea is to show that the Collegiate Arcane has sent the best (or perhaps most knowledgeable) of their mages to the city. The occasional +1 to magic is meant to represent that Eureka moment when one of those mages gets their act together and pulls off something profound. Before I sat down to make the city traits, I looked over the other cities to see if there was a pattern to the traits that were given to them. Within the variation, there were some consistencies. First, every city got a mild but consistent and dependable buff (+1 to run in Tempest Eye, heal 1 in Living Cities.) Second, most cities got a situational ability that was somehow tied to models or units (Runelord Prayer in Greywater Fastness, bonus in combat when a unit is slain in Phonecium.) Finally, every faction got a unique command ability. Some factions got one or two additional bonuses, but again I figured better to start cautiously and add on after the fact. With regards to Whispered Word ability, I might tweak it so that if you choose to use it on a unit out of range, you can only ever affect a single unit, regardless of whether of not the command ability is single target or area of effect. I'd just have to figure out the verbage for that in rules-speak.

It seems that they deliberately divided the stances to make them overlap. The Mountain Stance is the generic Alarith Stance used by all units, but the Stonemage Stance is only activated by the Stomemage. Granted, the Stomemage taking two stances at the same time does strain believability, but they may have let it slide because they're a 5 wound hero with a 5+ save.

I would point out that the major disadvantage to combining the different command roles onto the same model is that it makes that model a prime target for abilities that allow you to select and slay a specific enemy model. I also dislike having to model units without their proper weapons (I generally don't like the way it looks.) My solution is usually to try to kitbash the "command" pieces onto the model while still arming it with the proper weapons. So, banners are popping up out of the ground next to infantry, and on cavalry are simply mounted to the saddle. Where possible, musician instruments are hanging off on the side somewhere, present but out of the way.

I deliberately chose to exercise restraint with the battle traits until I had the chance to run it through its paces. It's really easy to go overboard with those kinds of things, and I don't necessarily need this city to be competitive, just fun. The +1 to cast bonus was kept weaker specifically so it wouldn't step on the toes of Hallowheart, and becomes more usable if you take the Tome of Arcane Mastery artifact. Whispered Word is one of the more powerful options on the list, which is one of the reasons it was relegated to a command trait. The other reason is that the Phoenix Guard are only supposed to be one of many parts that make up Gloamspire, and making that a city trait would have implied that they played a far more dominant role than they do. That's a fair point, particularly because the city was made specifically with Wanderers in mind. I usually play with more densely populated terrain on my tables, and this ability was meant to increase the utility of slower foot heroes like the Nomad Prince, but I hadn't considered how OP that ability might be under different circumstances. That's definitely not what I'm going for, and I'll have to make some adjustments.

The otter, platypus, and beaver are also good possibilities.

There's a distinct leaf shape to the (basket?) over the hand. That's hardly proof of anything, but it is a common style in elven models.

😆 That sure puts it in perspective! (So to speak.) The rules weren't so bad back in the day when shooting was less commonplace. It actually made shooting units useful. As the game stands now though, yeah, some work needs to be done there.

*Raises hand slowly*

I think having quantified roles and associated restrictions could be an amazing tool for balance, if implemented properly. Some folks might balk at the restrictions, but that's what narrative or open play are for.

Ok, that's an idea I see value to. It forces a bit of give and take in list-building (which is always a good thing) but won't necessarily limit the player too much. Fair point, and I'd say I agree with you on this. I don't necessarily mind the restrictive quality of battleline, so long as it is something that impacts everybody. KO and Ironjawz are two examples of armies that can make most or all of their units battleline. Considering the limited range of models for both factions, I appreciate that they are allowed more open build options, but it also removes any amount of give-and-take from list-building. Ok, I see that. If it actually gives a role and function to core units that gives them an equal but different value to elite units, battleline has it's place. Recent matched play rules have made heroes and battleline more valuable for generating victory points, which I approve of. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of ways to make "elite" units battleline, or else to buff up battleline so that they outshine the elites. A little more delineation between the two could greatly increase the relevance of having those battlefield roles. An elite unit wouldn't even need a defined role, it is just needs to be clearly superior to battleline units in x-way while battleline are of more value in y-way (and since objectives are the name of the game, giving battleline units a more objective-centric role would increase my perception of the role's relevance. That said, I don't know how well this would translate across all of the different armies.) I think I touched on this a bit in my reply to your second point. I agree with the statement, but I feel that the line between elite and battleline isn't as clear-cut as it should be. Eels are better than Namarti Thralls - as they should be - but can become battleline. A properly assembled and buffed unit of Witch Elves is the very best unit in DoK, outshining the snake-ladies and bat-ladies by a long sea-mile. There are other armies that do this better. Paladin units are much scarier in a fight than Liberators are (which isn't saying much these days, but that's a different conversation.) Kurnoth Hunters are much scarier than Dryads or reverants. End of the day I just don't feel like battleline is functioning as it should. The way you described it is exactly what I would want: List-building challenge, defining roles and giving everything value, separating high-teir units from low-teir units. I just don't think we're there yet.

I've been contemplating the function that battleline fulfills in AoS, and I'm not sure if I think it's really necessary at this stage of the game. Battleline units aren't balanced between factions. In some factions they're among the best units you can take, whereas in others they are considered a waste of valuable points. Some factions have so many options that they don't even have to worry about it, whereas others have tight restrictions on what can be battleline. This in and of itself would be fine if it was used to reign in more powerful factions, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I understand that the thematic point of Battleline units is that they represent the basic or fundamental troops of each army, and while that is excellent for things like narrative play, I'm not sure it currently serves a purpose in matched play. What are your thoughts? Is there an element to this that I'm missing?

That comes down to whether you want to be offensive or defensive. Personally, I recommend going aggressive with CV. At 1250 points, a big block of sequitors is no joke, and the 5-man evocators will also pose a respectable threat to enemy units. Force your opponent to run from/cope with those threats (supported by the Lord Arcanum and Lord Castellant) while your libs and Aetherwings hold or secure objectives.

Both have their virtues. It really depends on the strategy you want to focus down on. The extra command point gives you a reliable way to get buffs off for your Sequitors or Evocators, and is good to have in general. The extra Aetherwing offers you a little more mobility, and an extra unit to screen or grab objectives.

Here's an idea. Allegiance: Stormcast EternalsLord-Arcanum on Gryph-Charger (200)- GeneralLord-Castellant (120)5 x Liberators (90)- Warhammer & Shield20 x Sequitors (480)- Stormsmite Mauls and Soulshields5 x Evocators (210)3 x Aetherwings (40)3 x Aetherwings (40)3 x Aetherwings (40)Total: 1220 / 2000Extra Command Points: 0Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 96

I think most people here are currently agree with you, the game may have a few rough edges to smooth over but overall certainly does not need a new edition. We may feel differently by the time we get to the end of Broken Realms though, As I recall a lot of people complained about Psychic Awakening bloating and imbalancing 40k 8th Edition rather badly. GW might do better job with balance this time around, but its no guarantee. The more cynical among us will likely say that part of the point of these kinds of releases is to skew things so badly that we're eager for an edition update. As for why people feel that we're coming up on a new edition, GW seems to have settled into a 3-year cycle for their games (8th edition to 9th edition for 40k was 3 years, and I believe AoS1-AoS2 was also 3, if you ignore the period before there were "proper" game points.) Personally, I feel a 4 or even 5 year rotation would do better, but I'm not the one making money off of this game (far from it 😜 ) I'm curious to see what GW's plan for sculpts is. I had imagined that once they finished updating Battletomes they might do a year or two of re-sculpting and bring the older factions in line with the newer designs and aesthetics. Between the battletomes and new army releases of the last two years, they didn't make a ton of room for model redesigns, and if we get a new edition they're just going to have to start the cycle all over again. I suppose theoretically they could pick a few older factions and give them an overhaul, like they did with Gloomspite. Alternatively, having a Battletome for each of the factions now might streamline the updating process for future editions and allow them more time to start start focusing on models, but that may be an optimistic view of the matter. Either way, they'll still be releasing new factions, as each new faction generates a lot of sales upon release, and they certainly aren't going to jump off of that bandwagon, particularly since they seem so unwilling to introduce new factions into 40k. They gotta get that jolt of cash from somewhere, and AoS is still very much fertile ground for new ideas.

This release looked cool, but I'm only really interested in a few things. The Lumineth band is a win for me, I definately hope to get my hands on that, and the Psychic Awake- excuse me - Broken Realms books have my attention, but it's going to depend on what and how it's released. Honestly, it's a relief that my wallet will have a little time to breath.

Theoretically yes, but realistically no. I love the idea of a regular lore compilation, but I can't see myself actually purchasing that every year.

When I heard about these rules, I was desperately hoping that it was a sign of the direction games like AoS would take going forward. Having simultaneously combat would change everything, and give your units a chance to shine, even if they got deleted in the aftermath. I gave up on that dream shortly thereafter (it's highly unlikely GW would change AoS that fundamentally) but it sure would be nice if they went that way.

Man, I'd spring for that in a heartbeat. Love me my bird-dogs!