OkayestDM

I am very much looking forward to seeing how GW handles the rules for Khorne and Slaanesh. Both of these books have the potential to be a huge win, they just have to stick the landing. I'm a little surprised that they revealed those two times so soon. Perhaps the rapid push-out of the first 3 Spring battletomes bodes well for at least one of the death tomes coming with additional/updated models. There's been a number of tumor engines that are speculated to be FEC. Much as I'd love more OBR as well, I feel like this is less likely, and they'll probably just get the solo foot hero treatment.

OBR are consummate kitbashers.

Somebody on here had said something about being ok with certain heroes doing mortal wounds, but it got lost in the shuffle. It isn't something I had considered before, but the tragically underwhelming "melee foot hero" would be an excellent candidate for this, if MWs weren't already too prevevelant. It would give them a unique role and make them more dangerous, but the limited number of attacks would prevent them from going overboard. Of course, GW might still get caught up in power creep if they did that, but MWs being the a feature of hero models exclusively (including wizards with their spells) seems like it would make them feel more exceptional and distinct from standard troops. That said, we'd probably find ourselves back in a hero-monster meta if that was done.

This is where I'm at. Lumineth are the faction I wanted, but I wish Power of Hysh functioned more like OBR's Nadarite blades. The mortal wound dependency isn't fun.

So, are Beasts of Chaos just not getting warscroll cards?

All Out Defense still has some play and tactical use due to Rend. I'd rather keep AOD, but change the way it interacts with Rend: saves can only ever be improved by 1, and any save stacking beyond that is ignored when applying rend. This allows the defender to try to protect key units in a pinch, but keeps high-rend attacks valuable and useful.

Based on the wording, yes. Otherwise it would say "other friendly units."

In my case it's just that dwarves are lacking in my mini collection, and these guys are generic enough to fit in the other games I play. I've been waffling back and forth about picking some up, and this box suddenly made it very convenient to do so.

Funny enough, I had almost posted something about wanting more support for mercenaries in the game. I may pick up the dwarves, and I've been waffling over getting some of the Warcry beasts for a while, so I'll likely pick them up too.

It's odd, because I feel like MWs have actually toned down in 3.0 as compared to 2.0. We still have them, and there's still a lot, but they aren't as bad as they used to be. 2.0 was full of the dreaded MW "in addition," which made certain units absolute blenders. Now, baring a few exceptions, MW simply replace the hit-wound sequence (and the units that do get the "in addition" rule have fewer attacks to begin with.) None of this is to say that we wouldn't be better off with fewer MWs out there, just that I'm surprised people seem to think it's worse now than it was before.

I don't really follow TheHonestWargamer so I'm not current on how reliable his information tends to be, but that sounds like nonsense to me. Unless of course their plan is to re-imagine the BoC in a more AoS-ified manner, as they've done with several other factions already. Though I don't really see why that would need doing. All the other forms of Chaos made the jump from the Old World into the Age of Sigmar. Be kinda weird if the Beasts of Chaos, the "true sons" of Chaos, are the ones who can't stick the landing.

Agreed. It's been pointed out before, but all of the additional rules that have come out with the GHBs have felt very much like mass playtesting for AoS 4.0. I don't know if an expanded keyword system would necessarily be a good thing or not - that would depend heavily on how it is implemented - but there are certainly some cases where it would most helpful.

Ah, so it's pretty much what was posted in the rumor thread already. Thank you!

Would it be possible to summarize said rumors for the benefit of those unwilling or unable to join the FB group?

Definitely taking the new rumors with a health helping of salt. That said, if the "Azyrite" rumor is true, I'm interested.

Love the new Ghoul King. I've been toying with getting into FEC (gonna wait for the new book to decide) but I'm pretty sure I'll be picking this guy up regardless. There's a surprising lack of Christmas-esque paraphernalia on this one. Makes me wonder if he wasn't meant for something else that never made the final cut (my first thought is a canceled Cursed City expansion.)

- Grand Alliance Books Back when Grand Alliances were a thing, you had generic rules for Grand Alliance armies, complete with artifacts and command traits. Ally rules are fine, but sometimes you just want a proper medley of your favorite models with some basic support. Balancing this properly would be a challenge, but if this was introduced as an Open Play supplement with some basic guidelines, it could get some mileage. While we're at it, some mercenary rules wouldn't be amiss either. Hiring out as mercenaries is a fundamental part of Fireslayer lore, and also featured heavily in Ogor fluff as well. Toss some mercenary rules into the Grand Alliance pack and pick out a few factions that are willing to fight alongside anyone for the right price (I can see OBR being willing to send troops to somebody's aid for a prize cache of quality bone material!) Honestly, providing additional proper support for the two other "styles of play" would be a welcome move, and there's a lot of directions they could go with that, if they made the leap.

I went with "no soup," but if I'm honest, it doesn't really bother me personally either way. I sympathize with the argument that souping factions erodes their identity, and can understand people wanting to steer clear of that. I think souping is an efficient means of releasing rules for several similar, smaller factions - and can see why GW might lean in that direction, given how many factions they already have in AoS - but efficient doesn't always mean correct.

Change artillery units so they have a reliable "standard" attack, and a more niche "special" attack. Ideally, that special attack has an effect similar to a spell or prayer (roll a die for each model in unit, 6s auto-hit and auto-wound for x rend.) Point the units low, based only on their standard attack, but strictly limit the number of artillery pieces that can be taken in a game. That way the unit is attractive even if it's special attack doesn't come into play, but it can't be spammed.

While I'm cautious to hope for anything more than the re-done beastlord model, I am very interested to see what GW does with the BoC rules. The improvement to the Beast Lord rules is fine, but the fact that during the stream they said he can also chain activate with other units makes his ability much more appealing, both from a functional and narrative perspective (one beastlord isn't likely to lay down that much hurt, but paired with a unit that is buffed with +1 to hit and wound, that has some potential. It also encourages you to get the Beastlord stuck in with other heroes, which is exactly what you would expect him to do based on the lore.) Far too early to say how the BoC rules will pan out, but this is at least encouraging.

The new command trait isn't amazing, but it also isn't terrible. The +1 to hit and wound doesn't require that the unit(s) being buffed attack a hero, just that the Beastlord be in melee with one. Granted, that doesn't seem ideal given the current beastlord, but maybe the warscroll has had a glow-up that will make it less detrimental. We'll just have to wait and see.

I painted my Stonemage fully assembled, and I don't recall it being particularly difficult to do so.

-Change the Anvil of Apotheosis to work as part of the Path to Glory rules, and give each battletome faction specific AoA rules for their heroes and generals. -Make gaining and controlling territories in PtG more meaningful. Allow opponents to "invade" a specific territory to attempt to take it from an opposing army, but give the defending player a bonus - possibly modified by whether or not the territory has been upgraded. -Release a PtG battleplan pack which includes all of the faction specific battleplans from previous battletomes, re-tailored to work in the current rule set. This alone could dramatically improve the interest in PtG play. Adding a bunch of new unique, flavorful, and asymmetrical battleplans would be fun too (sidenote, a lot of factions and units have rules specific to their ability to hold objectives; make sure they actually get to benefit from them somehow in PtG.) -Give every faction a hero with a foot/mount/monster progression (like the Lord-Celestant, Killaboss, or Chaos Lord.) Not every hero needs this, but at least one hero per faction who has a version in all three tiers would be great.

To piggy-back off of that, I'd like a rule where heroes with less than "x" wounds (10?) can never be damaged by more than 1 shooting attack at a time, regardless of the number of models shooting. This would negate the bizarre dissonance where a single guy on foot gets pelted by 20 arrows from across the battlefield with unerring accuracy.

There's been some lively and very interesting discussion about this recently in a few other places on the forum, so I thought I'd make a proper thread for the topic. There's always room for improvement with any system, and there are also personal preferences that - while not necessarily practical changes - are nonetheless fun to talk about. A simple change I'd like to see in the game - and that I've definitely dedicated way too much time thinking about- would be to make Totem models a more significant part of each army (and, by inference, to make sure that each army got at least one.) This is purely a personal preference thing, but having the hero model with the really cool flag/banner/icon function as a more central figure in the force would be really fun and thematic. Give each one an aura bonus (or an enhancement table from which they can choose an aura bonus) that supports the army's play style(s), and give each Totem a built in once per game warscroll ability that they can use (like the Stormcast Knight Vexillor, or the Lumineth Bladebanner.) For extra fun, an additional/ optional rule could be that the opposing player earns bonus VP if they slay the Totem model while in melee combat, effectively stealing/destroying your army's banner. So, what are some crazy (or, you know, perfectly reasonable) things you'd like to see change or make their way into AoS?