RocketPropelledGrenade

This reminds me of my own list-building process. Start with the models I absolutely want in the list no matter what, and then build out from there. Similarly, I never optimize so far as to use a model I truly hate--my Soulblight reluctantly included the old Grave Guard sculpts, who are a little goofy and boring, but at least cool in concept. I never included Zombies because I just don't ever like zombies in anything. List-building is basically a process of making the best result I can out of self-imposed restrictions. If that's the sort of thing you want to do, I have a recommendation on what might work. However, it's pretty conditional on you finding a Cultist unit you can put up with at least a little (maybe Spire Tyrants?). I think Ravagers is a good home for all three of the Daemon Prince, Manticore Lord, and Warshrine, but without cultist chaff to recur for move-blocking and objective stealing, Ravagers is a dead faction. If you can fit in even just 20-30 cultist models alongside your more badass stuff, I think you could have a pretty solid tactical play to go with the excellent style.

In my experience, the various Alarith units are basically what people have been talking about since the new tome, yeah. They got a serious glow up, and Avalenor possibly most of all. Personally, I like that they are good now, but I feel Avalenor pulled way too far ahead of the generic spirit relative to their points difference. I would have liked the Spirit of the Mountain to get similar levels of glow-up proportional to the cost, but I don't think it really did.

Possibly if you approach it that way, yeah. I'm still skeptical, because I think a giant devastating monster impacts more factions in more ways than almost any Endless Spell. Purple Sun's power doesn't really change anyone's game plan or what units you include other than making sure you have the points (at least not since the Spellsinger nerf). Cogs is probably the only one that comes to close, but most factions that really benefit the most from Cogs are included to castle around their wizards with or without Endless Spells. On the other hand, I've seen lists that are built around the way the Krondspine fits into them that are just not possible without incarnates, because there is nothing remotely equivalent in how it works in the faction. That's not inherently a bad thing, but it is a huge balance variable that can throw a ton of stuff out of whack. In isolation, a balance team can make a lot of things work. Thrown into the already crazy and chaotic stewpot of existing rules, the more complexity and variables you add, the harder literally everything becomes to balance against and alongside everything else. Also, for the purpose of my comment, I was talking about Incarnates as a unique unit type, not Incarnates as a flavor text for factionless monsters. YMMV, but I think the main distinguishing feature of an incarnate is the incarnate rules, not the factionless-ness of them. If you just want factionless monsters, you don't even need incarnates. We've had wandering monster rules before, just refine those. But if an Incarnate is a unique unit type, it kind of implies it's not just a monster.

The Lumineth Star Shard Ballista is also a decent piece of Artillery that could be useful in place of or alongside real ranged units like Sentinels in some lists, so I think there are definitely signs that GW is getting better at doing the warscrolls for this stuff.

We do not, sadly. All we know is it's an absolute minimum of three weeks out because it wasn't on the Sunday preorder window.

Complete agreement. That damage potential is just potential, not an actuality, and they are significantly less durable per point than many other equivalent units. I would really love to use the Gutrippaz I got from Dominion in the Big Waaagh list I've been building towards, but 'Ard Boyz are like a million times better as an anvil or chaff, and don't lose out on significant damage in most non-white room scenarios because the Gutrippaz are already mostly dead by the time they can fight as often as not. Gutrippaz really don't serve a role, regardless of taking them in pure KB or BW. There is an easy fix that would make them at least usable, though--just streamline Skare Taktiks to be -1 to be hit, period (or even just in melee, whatever). I know I'm like the millionth person to suggest it though. I just want Gutrippaz to be good!

I really hope not. The dream as I see it is that the incarnate rules were a one-off experiment that get locked out of Matched Play in the next GHB (I really don't like the rules for them). That being said, a faction-specific incarnate would be way easier to balance than a universal one like the Krondspine.

Definitely good to keep expectations reined in, but I think given the lack of a current roadmap, we'll probably see at least a hint of the next battletome to come. Something for the next GHB is also plausible. I don't know that we'll get all of that, but I could see getting at least one or two more things than you listed, especially as the warband would be a separate reveal from AoS proper and the Incarnate could easily be part of Seasons of War: Gallet. For the record, I also think that if the Spider Incarnate is real (I am inherently mistrustful of rumors, even with Whitefang's record) it could be that the rumors are lost in translation somewhat and it might be a god-centerpiece for GSG rather than an Incarnate proper. Given the lore on Incarnates, I think that might even be likely.

There's no need for an FAQ, as nothing in the rules says or even suggests anything against it. In general, rules are additive and don't get in each other's way unless they outright contradict each other or are stated to do so somewhere.

Both legal.

I've been super hyped about AoS lately. I love the battletomes we've been getting, especially the new Slaves to Darkness one where my armored favorites are good again--and more importantly to me, feel like they should for their impact in the lore. I also made a whole post in the Slaves to Darkness thread gushing about the Chosen kit--I won't repeat it here, but suffice to say it is amazingly well designed and executed on multiple levels. It's not just S2D that has me excited, though. I've been slowly working on fitting all the 3rd ed tomes into my budget, making this the first edition of any Warhammer game in years where I buy tomes or codices of armies I don't play. The lore has been a lot of fun to keep up on and feels like it's consistently fresh without losing sight of what made AoS appealing to me at any point, plus I'm playing regularly enough that keeping up on extra rules is useful.

I like the scheme, @Bayul! One question, although I think it works with whatever answer--is it supposed to be that glossy, or is that an artifact of Impcat? The colors are good overall, and you're making me want to post some of the Warriors I've gotten painted in my own scheme.

The issue with pushing community fixes is that it becomes fractious and hard to understand real fast. A standardized understanding of the game is vital if you want to be able to play against people you don't know. I'm not just talking about events here--even within a single game store, if a new player comes into the game excited to play with their freshly purchased battletome, they aren't going to get your house rules or why you made them. Even if there's an outdated or heavily errata'd battletome, that's usually an easier sell than house rules. And the moment you have multiple communities in an area (which is the case near me)n or travel to a con or tournament or other event...all bets are off. Sure, in theory you could make rules so good everyone adopts them. That doesn't happen in real life. Ever. You make a competing standard, at best you split the community two ways. More likely you get ignore, or someone else makes a third standard you don't like but isn't the core rules either. Now, to not be a complete downer, I will say house rules have their place for sure. But they are not a fix for the community at large. They are good for using against friends and among communities you already know and who are interested in buying in. Just be aware of their limitations.

Got my box earlier today and have been assembling the Chosen. I cannot say enough nice things about this kit. Just fantastic overall. Lots of variety, with tons of extra head and weapon options--even two different banners options (which is great for keeping track of your Ensorcelled Banner in a reinforced unit if you do that). Poses are dynamic without feeling too out there, and there's multiple different arm poses in some cases depending on which weapon you attach to a given torso. Speaking of poses, the two-handed grips actually fit together easily and smoothly, which is more or less a first in my experience. And while there's definitely some fiddly bits (the badges on the right-hand pauldrons come to mind, as do some of the individual spike attachments) they are way less fiddly than I thought after looking at them. The closest thing I have to a complaint is that the massive variety is limited in two very specific places--the weapons for the standard bearer or drummer. Both have great-looking armaments, but in a reinforced unit where you take duplicate standards and/or drummers, you will notice the repeat. However, that's partially because you don't have to have any repeats without duplicating those roles. No joke--there are five unsued weapons after building a full sprue's worth, so taking ten of them can feature ten unique weapons in theory (or 8 unique weapons and safety from getting your banner or drummer sniped). It's just so good. I'm in love and I haven't even started building my Daemon Prince yet.

Definitely agreed on the VLOZD. It's a good mobile anvil but far too unreliable to be a hammer, and at the points cost it has, it should be decent as both (or have more support functionality). Given it's a wizard and has self-healing and a ward, I wouldn't ask for Maw Krusha output or anything, but making the damage less random and boost the hit rolls on at least one of the mount profiles would be real nice. I think points drops might happen before the new tome if the win rate on the faction goes below 45%, but since the VLoZD is so widely used, I don't see them doing that except as a boost to winrates. Instead, I'd hope for a boost next tome. Ideally an offensive or utility buff combined with a couple extra wounds to keep up with the general power creep of a lot of monster profiles.

I have had some luck with Draw on Power for the spell casting boost, but the things I am learning are that you don't want to use it every hero phase, and that re-rolls on those rolls are worth exponentially more than usual (where they are already pretty good). Cogs or Master of Magic are both big deals with that approach. I've also found 6+ saves plentiful enough in the build I run that Sorcs dropping Oracular Visions on themselves can save them from just exploding outright under a bad miscast.

Dying slowly can be a useful thing though, provided it is slowly enough. You don't need to kill that much to win a game if you just trade favorably in the right places. I haven't played against Maggotkin much (not many players of it in my local area), but I've heard horror stories of objectives bogged down for impossibly long by big plaguebearer blocks, so I'd definitely give it a try if you already have the models.

Okay, I don't play PtG much, but I am very much in favor of these ideas.

I think the right number of warscrolls is contextual to the faction and to the existing scrolls. Ironjawz are close to perfect in executing their faction concept, and there are very few things even possible to add that don't dilute that, IMO. Warboss on gore-grunta or similar mounted but non-monster hero is pretty much the only thing I've heard suggested that works for them without disrupting what they have going on (which is currently great, IMO). Ironjawz are the all gas, no brakes, throw your force into the jaws of the enemy and laugh as they drown in a tide of Green faction. It works. Fyreslayers technically have more scrolls, but I'd argue they have less variety. In IJ, every unit serves a distinct role and purpose, and mixing and matching allows you to fine tune in interesting ways (although this was better balanced before the errata gave pigs Rend -2 on the one weapon option). In FS, there's...Berserker Unit, Berserker Unit 2, Literally just Berserker Unit but Better, and then one other non-hero unit that isn't the exact same role as the other three ("elite" isn't a role, it's a cost). And then you have Combat Monster, Combat Monster 2, Combat Monster 3 but it's also a Priest so Slightly Different, and so on. At least Lofnir differentiates Runesons and Runefathers for Oops All Droths, but there's plenty of room within the Fyreslayers idiom for other concepts. Ranged units already exist for them, so something like a Magma Cannon as an artillery piece isn't far out of whack. Small minidroths but in a cav unit isn't outside their milieu. You could leverage these small bits of variety present into good amounts of variety without changing the faction identity--but you also could never get them to Stormcast levels of scrolls without breaking the faction, because not even Stormcast should have that many scrolls. Basically, I'd be fine with anywhere single digit warscroll numbers in a few cases to 30-40 in others, but it has to make sense for the faction and fit their design in gameplay, lore, and aesthetic. Some factions make sense with big rosters. Others don't, but could still benefit from a scroll or two sometimes.

Mostly just streamlining battle tactics/grand strategies as a more intuitive secondary objective system, and creating a casual battlepack that has some simpler options for that kind of play and for teaching newbies. Any other dissatisfaction I have is either on a tome/warscroll level, nit-picking, or both. I generally love where the game is at right now.

I doubt the Daemon Prince will get dramatic changes. It is unfortunate in lore terms, but most foot heroes are like that, and the Prince is basically a glorified foot hero. It's there to provide battleshock immunity with the trophy rack and maybe the Nurgle heroic action or some heals with a command trait or something. It's also not bad as an "out" when a fightier hero like a Karkadrak or even Manticore Lord gets really low wounds but gets an Eye of the Gods roll--send your beatsick into an enemy Hero, kill them but get wounded in the process, and hope you roll well enough to get 10 brand new wounds. Not reliable by any means, although a bit closer in Undivided. I'm still deciding how I'm gonna build mine--with my current list building, I'm leaning towards wings since I don't take many units that care about battleshock (small numbers and high bravery) and I will only ever be using it as an EotG roll on my injured heroes anyways. Sword is the coolest looking weapon, but I think axe is probably better, especially if it turns out my Idolator Lord can keep Curse after ascending (since both proc on 6's to hit, and therefore are mutually exclusive). I will probably go sword anyways, just like I did on my VLoZD for soulblight--sweet modeling options win out for me.

Interesting to see all the pushback on command abilities. I personally not only love the decision points they offer, but find the core ones pretty simple to keep track of. There's even a reference sheet of less than a page in size that has all core command abilities and their timing on the back of the GHB. There's a lot of places some of the complexity could be trimmed down to ease newer players in and relieve the mental burden for looser, more casual games, but I don't think command abilities should be hit. I'd much rather go after stuff like battle tactics and grand strategies and focus the game onto its core objective play (secondary objectives are good, but more as an additional complexity thing for those who want it).

That looks like a post from 2019, when the now-old book was the new book.

The Gutrippaz problem is exactly why the talked about qualitative data, though. They know there's more to it than just the raw data.

This is one of several questions I've been thinking about that I'm gonna send in to the rules team, hopefully for eventual FAQ inclusion. Just waiting to have the physical book out to do so in case that impacts the reception. If anyone is curious, here is the full list (in case you want to add your own voice for sending this in): Q: If a Cabalists Hero rolls on the Eye of the Gods table and receives the Daemonhood result, is the resulting Daemon Prince a Wizard? Q: If a Slaves to Darkness Hero with the PRIEST or WIZARD keywords rolls on the Eye of the Gods table and receives the Daemonhood result, does the resulting Daemon Prince retain any Prayer Scripture or Spell Lore enhancements alongside its retained Artefacts of Power and Command Traits? Q: Does a Daemon Prince added by the Daemonhood result on the Eye of the Gods table retain the benefits of any previous rolls on the Eye of the Gods table, such as benefitting from an additional -1 Rend on its weapons if it previously rolled the Slaughterer’s Strength result? Q: The Core Rules state that all Wizards can cast and unbind spells. How many spells can a Cabalists Hero whose Warscroll does not have the Wizard keyword by default cast or unbind? Q: Certain abilities allow a unit to roll on the Eye of the Gods table “after deployment.” Does this refer to the deployment of the unit or the army? Q: The Ensorcelled Banner The Blasphemous Icon has the qualifier “while this model is on the battlefield” for its effect, while the other Ensorcelled Banners do not. Can the effects of another Ensorcelled Banner be applied to a unit that originally possessed such an enhancement but lost the relevant standard bearer model?