Koala

One might think that the ITC takeover happened BECAUSE they were listening... to the ultra involved ITC crowd. This is a common issue with Community management: it is easy to listen to the hardcore players, because they are most available ( and often enough also more vocal about their ideas/wishes, not to say noisy), but they are only a minority of the playerbase. Less involved ones will just silently drift away when their expectations are not met. So how do you get the attention ( both as a game and for feedback) of someone who hardly finds the time for the hobby in the first place?

Well, i guess you could define anything that is "not fun" as NPE. Therefore loosing would be NPE. IMHO a NPE that should concern us is something we were not expecting and accepting as part of the Game Experience. E.g. AoS is a dice game. So we have to accept the randomness ( to a degree). Same with loosing the Game - you want to win, you could loose. Deal with it. A lot of the complaints ( except ofcourse "imbalance" and "always 1s") are either Lack of agency ("there was nothing i could do") - we expect a game to be played by both parties roughly equally. This is why saving throws are done last - it is up to you to save your plastic soldiers... even if it is only on 6+... And this is why ranged combat and outdrop/T1 alpha strike are often called NPEs. Because AoS offers little to no ways to prepare for/against them. Gotcha Moments ( "i had no idea about that rule/possibility.") This is where WYSIWYG came from and why i often speak out against artifacts, warlord/subfaction abilities and stratagems. Nice players spend quite some time explaining their list to the opponent to prevent exactly this feeling. Breaking Immersion/Expectation (" this is not how that should Work") Also WYSIWYG. Tabletops are related to simulations. Sometimes we expect the game to play in a certain "fluffy" way or certain units to have a certain relative strength. (This is not about Balance!). e.g. AoS3 has rather complicated formation rules just because many players found conga-lining rather appaling to look at. It should be noted that the solutions to these can be quite different (if any). For example a lot of "hated" lists include strong ranged units. This is because AoS has rather few ways to protect yourself from ranged attacks ( just compare it to WH40k or BoltAction). Add in a double Turn and everyone gets what i mean. The solution could be more rules OR less ranged unit options OR less powerfull ranged units OR No double Turn. Any of these could cause other NPEs.

Slightly OT Bit If i was @Whitefang i would start to react to posts ramdomly just so pepole stop interpreting my every action. Also: don't OBR already have a mounted Hero? I feel they are at that stage where new units start dilluding the uniqueness of the army ( getting one of everything). Still need Archers/a ranged Unit, though.

We are kindof OT Here but: I feel Like a lot of people take a rather specific stance towards the developement of the game/miniature line. Which is "i want more of MY stuff. How dare they do other stuff i do Not want." WE know GW is miniature/design driven. Their believe is that a great Design will always sell better in the long run. So while loud whining might get one of the "bigbadbusiness" people to preassure for some token release to shut you up actual big growth for a specific line would need visuals and design space for that. Within the GW universe and style, clearly they decided to let go of designs that seem too generic. We saw this when they first took steps to discontinue Slaanesh, then took a small step with several redesigned Deamons ( all but one of which also work in 40k, so low risk). Only when they felt they had a specific design language for Hedonites and the feedback was positive did we see a full NEW release. Now looking at Fireslayers: with the exception of maybe weird cavalry and some weird warmachine there is not really much you can do. By Design they are all naked dwarfs with red hair. It is hard enough to keep apart the few heroes they have! Until someone figures out a way to expand their aesthetics in an interesting way they will be sidelined. As were elves! High Elves were famously MIA after AoS launched. The community was outraged! The design team took its time and developed a NEW Design language for them. And because they learned from the fireslayers incident they kept an option to further add in Elements ( literally. Via the temples). I don not like the army myself ( never did) but you must admit: Well done, GW! Sylvaneth had some space with "not trees and symbiotic relationships"? First try a single release and when that one works add in more stuff! It seems the next big thing is going to be "Not Empire" Humans. I am intrigued! Will classic dwarves get a similar refresh? I hope so. But - again - the Design team works on its own time and will always focus on aesthetics over checking some box on an org chart. So instead of expecting to get something new just because someone else got something ASK: what new and interesting design could my faction offer? What is missing to make it complete? ( And then have someone relevant Take notice xD) PS: and yes, things are never this easy. Like Slaves To Darkness got all the cultist warbands which muddle over the faction design. But they are essentially not AoS, they are Warcry models with AoS rules attached. And it shows.

And i am sitting Here... Just happy i can soon have Chosen that actually look like they can take on a Stormcast (and might even be cheaper than the current ones)

I spy with my little eye: Chequers on the shaft. That would usually be a 40k Orks thing. Is there anything AoS that uses them? It could be some new design theme, obviously.

Ironically you could also argue the simplicity of AoS was what gave it its enormous success from basically nothing. After all 40k 8th Ed was clearly inspired by AoS 1.0. But yeah, finding a balance between complexity and accessability is the big GW design challenge. And as i keep pointing out: WE vote with out wallets.

More Rules for the Rules God! ( And i must say that i feel deeply disgusted by the audacity of calling this "a satisfyingly different approach to balance". Like more rules to fix problematic rules/balance hasnt been a staple of GW gamedesign for decades. And it rarely works)

I feel like these debates always turn into a catfight. There are just so many different ways to (possibly not) enjoy the hobby. No chance we might agree on anything. And with design there is usually no way to qualify "better", anyway. As for myself i truly think 3.0 was a major downgrade from 2.0. Neither did i like the additional rules nor feel my issues with 2.0 were adressed ( OK, big units were. But considering the rules issues this change cost i would call that a sidegrade at best). And i got unhappy with the last few rules in 2.0 as well... So major lump as i do not enjoy the game anymore and am currently "just" painting and collecting. But i am happy for everyone who likes this edition. And vote with my vallet, as things should be. PS: I get the "something is missing" voices. Bought the Maggotkin Battletome just for the fun of it. And while the artworks are stunning, the fluff suitably over the top and the rules - even though i do not agree with the direction they take - rather well written and designed.... it all just feels soulles. I have all those old GW Books and while they are objectively worse for so many reasons... They are fun. They make me smile. They make me want to collect/build/play something crazy and creative.

Thank you for the question. Yellow basecoat, random black spots paint in (slightly red) brown spots, so that on one side it connects to the yellow basecoat. Then shade and edgehighlights according to taste. Originally i did the brown spots first and then used a black highliner to do the black borders... slightly nicer/more controlled but WAY more work. Also you have to seal in the highliner as it tends to rub off. So not suggested. As can be seen on my keeper. That coat cost me ages!

So i did a thing...

This pops up every few months. I always point out that due to the alternating MELEE activations double turns are not that problematic as long as the main focus of the gameplay is to go in and bash each other in the face. ( With reasonably killy/tanky units) It is ranged/spell heavy gameplay that is the issues. ( Because you literally get two times the value without counterplay) It is just very unfun to be on the receving side of this, even as you possibly win the mission. And every few months i look at the recent Battletomes and realise: there is more and more ranged and spellheavy Units. Now we know GW likes the Double Turn as the unique AoS thing. And so do i. But imho this means a lot of ranged units need to have their warscrolls changed so they have more of a support role. Those funny little gimmicks they hand out are sure not going to cut it. (Full disclosure: i love my tzeentch and hedonites. But pre-pointsincrease flamers were just toxic)

Well the Tzeentch Battletome has the range to support your playstyle. And you can definitively make it work in a friendly Game! Have fun! ( Just do not rely on summoning. It is more of a nice to have and mostly the game will already be decided before you can bring in more than some emergency screamers) Historically the Most succesful DoT lists ( that have not been nerfed to death) rely on what i call destructive control: slow them down, stop them from doing their thing. Like Changeling and Kairos abilities, Hosts Arcanum Auto dispell, have horrors die as slowly as possible... So pretty much a weird kind of anvil playstyle. With too much " spell ranged tricky" playstyles there are some armies that just break you ( although the worst Alpha strike times are over... Ironically because Tzeentch Eternal Confraglation Flamer Spam was nerfed). It can be a bit frustating to know you can not win after Setup. Which is probably why many players shy away from this even though in a non-tournament setup you rarely meet this scenario.

Can i go just slightly OT? The reactions to the topic are why i just like TGA. There sure is some negativity and criticism but the baseline attidude of most people here is "it is a Hobby. So i will either have some fun with or get out of it". ( Which is, btw, also my answer to the questions)

They have to few, to unreliable shots to be a reliable thread at range. They are a decent fast melee unit when striking first. But in general they do to many things to be actually good at any of them ( per points payed). So while you will mostly be underwhelmed by their actual performance they bring a lot of flexibility... What kills them is they just do not fit into the current Tzeentch playstyle.

As has been said hedonites are quite well designed as in there are no really badly designed units (except slaangors, but even they are OK if a bit underwhelming). And there is not as much synergy stacking happening, so with the exception of the Keeper of Secrets ( which is NOT the beatstick you would expect but a support hero, so only useful if you first have something big you want to have fight twice) you can just choose to your liking. But this also means no "must have" choices. Go for what you like aesthetically and/or the playstyle you prefer. Most daemon units are currently slightly out of favour, but then a start collecting daemons of Slaanesh is cheap and always useful ( If Just to have something to summon). I would guess it has more to do with the mortals being exciting new models than anything else.

Well, considering pinks are on 32mm bases while blue/brimstones are 25mm this would probably be quite weird. If you just want to have fun with the models there is a (now clearly inferior) option to run the pinks without splitting. If you want to be competative you will probably have to bite the bullet.

Well, i guess you both have to do the unthinkable and test it on the board

Great Data, Thank you so much for sharing. Especially interesting to see the changes as the sample size grows. (Or, in most cases, lack thereof)

So i have had my first 3.Ed game and have to say: I do not mind the new coherency rules at all. Sure, they hit some units harder than others. That is change for you But those Hero- Monster- and Command Abilities are just too much. I warnt to win by making smart desicions, not by remembering all the rules and actions i have available. Not that i do not wish everyone who Likes those rules all the fun in the world. But it does make the game considerably less enjoyable for me.

GW: we learned from Indomitus and have produced a lot of boxes, we are really confident it will not sell out right away. Internet: it will be sold out! Not all of us will get it... Panic, Desaster! Conspiracy theories. Reality: stock lasts longer than two weeks. Internet: noone is buying it! Panic, Desaster! Conspiracy theories. Me: Just another day in GW hobby forums...

Absolutely understandable desicion. I regularly do TT/online detox and it IS healty for your attidude towards the hobby ( or even life itself). (Not so) fun fact : TGA and its (at the time) positive attitude was a major reason for my last return to the hobby.

Hmmm... Let me see Tzeentch: still too strong. BoC: was considered quite weak, got hit hard by the changes. What else is new? StD: still weird. But i am sure something something powercombo will turn up. The army has so many mismatched rules and units, this is bound to Happen. Slaanesh: hmmmm .. I do not know. The rules are fine but the new battletome famously had almost everything too expensive. Also fine, i guess?

In general i am a great proponent of "try it first, complain later or never". And i can certainly see something interesring or understandable in most previewed changes. But they DO seem to push AoS into the direction of 40k. ( Higher complexity, more "free rules", also rules/text overlap) And quite frankly 9th Ed. has caused me and half my friends to stop playing 40k. To call me worried would be an understatement.

Sigh. Maybe just wait ONE DAY untill we see the actual profile. Then we can start the inevitable complaints. (Or, even better, wait untill some of us played with them and can give us an actual feedback about it).