Sarouan

He was a thing in the old Warhammer Battle RPG (and even so, mostly as a side note than anything else...he never played a major role in any of the big official campaigns). He's not for a very long time, now, only in the hearts of players nostalgic of the old lore.

Dominions from Horus Heresy are just templates that are more or less tied to the 4 Chaos Powers and nature of Chaos itself : the Ravenous Dissolution could be very much be Khorne's since he's already pretty much self-destructive (after all, he doesn't care where come the blood that is spilled, even amongst his own followers). They're not really meant to hint anything about other Chaos Gods, including from the very old lore of Warhammer Battle, and especially not in AoS.

AoS is at core a game with variable tied to many rolls, you know. Using dice to determine events / successes in game rather than others means is a design choice GW always followed. Once you understand and accept that, it's already a big step helping to relativise the highs and lows during a game : "damn, I saved nothing even though statistics said I should at least save one wound !" "welp, got 6 1's for my hit rolls, what can I say ?" "c'mon you got a Double Turn !!". Dice is the perfect objective arbiter in GW's eyes, and thus it's more simple to submit to its rule before moving on with the game (and blame it rather than your own skills ). And the thing is, it's deliberate for avoiding people to control all the possible variables and thus making the game predictable (and boring). What is true is that 3rd had a bloat of special rules to keep in mind...but it has nothing to do with Double Turn in itself, it's how they handled their seasons and kept adding more rules to "keep things fresh or whatever" while it wasn't really that needed for the game. Core game at the launch of 3rd wasn't really a problem, but if you started AoS now with all the season books bs, it was definitely a hassle to keep up. With 4th, they said they would "simplify" things, so at least we'll get rid of these season books...for as long as it will last (of course GW will keep adding more rules in the future, you gotta feed the competitive scene after all - yes, it's the competitive scene that's asking for that, not the casual players who really don't care and could play core rules forever while being perfectly happy about it).

They do focus on bringing constant new blood to their games - and that's why they keep being the top one with their dedicated stores and why smaller companies will never be able to compete with GW as long as they don't do the same investment in their own dedicated stores to the same scale. But their business model isn't designed to "sell products to little timmys mother" : it's about selling products to "people with the Hobby gene", meaning people who are attracted naturally to miniatures and modelism. And the best way to find them is to be as broad as possible and touch as many people as possible. It's about finding these people who will become true customers, not about selling to lil children. Otherwise, projects like The Old World would never exist. This is a game that's definitely not aimed to "little timmys", but totally at veterans of old Warhammer Battle. And I'm not really sure it's aimed at bringing new players that much either...I mean, they're bringing the old miniatures, that's not appealing to the new generation...that's totally aimed at nostalgic players who knew that time before. As for 4th, Spearhead is completely meant for new players but also people who don't have much time on their own. But they do also care for veteran players with other modes and products. Adding new units is clearly not meant for new players, but previous ones : that's how they keep selling to veterans, adding miniatures that didn't exist previously so that they can add it to their collection.

It depends of the game, actually. Things never happen in a vacuum, and Double Turn is just one element happening that can have an influence on the fun - positively or negatively. For example, if I'm already losing and my opponent gets a Double Turn and smash my army of puny goblins real hard, I still may have fun if my mind is already at peace with the loss and I'm having a good laugh at just comically bad they're being crushed (like the villain minions of a cartoon - which, to be honest, they kinda are ). The answer can be different if the game is tense and you feel like you're losing "because of it" (though in reality, we players do like to blame hazard when we lose and not always looking at what we could have done differently tactically / strategically speaking). And it's even more when, from the other side of the len, someone is coming back to the game thanks to it. It's indeed somewhat of an element of unknown, yet you can prepare for it because it's in the rules : once you know it can happen both ways (and if you play often, it will eventually ), you learn to deal with it. That's why I said the real question is if you want to play with it, rather than trying to see if it's good, bad or fun in itself : because it's just a rule, and rules in themselves don't have any of that. It's what happens in the whole game that does, and a game never relies on only one rule alone. It's always happening thanks to a combination of rules but, most important, of what players live and do during it while following the rules. Players' mindset is also a key component. So far in 4th, even with the video we just have small hints that are basically not enough. But if the new rules do indeed allow to do much more during the opponent's turn (like charging, apparently) and they give more importance to the choice of going first or second in a turn with victory conditions / scoring in a battleplan - then having a Double Turn may not have the same impact than in current 3rd. Wait and see, and once it's out let's try it with an open mind. We may be surprised by the result.

There is no real "need" to change the rules or "improve" the game. It's always about selling new stuff (and new books ). It's always up to the veterans to see if they adopt the new rules or not...there are always people jumping off the train with each new edition, and always people still playing with older editions within their group of same mindset. New players, it's another matter : no matter what edition they begin with, they'll accept the rules as they are at the time - because that's the first they know. At least, GW will offer everything needed to play as free download, so there's that. There's no real cost to try them, and you can always use your existing book collection in case it really doesn't please you. A win-win situation, IMHO.

And you could remove initiative dice from Warcry and it would still function perfectly fine. But it would still need adjustments gamewise, be it in the core rules, battletomes or simply scenarios. Simply put : it wouldn't be the same game anymore because like it or not, it's part of the core rules. Change the rules, change the social contract. And that's where the trouble begins when players don't agree on the rules to use. That's why it's always difficult to make other people accept your "fan made "rules that you think are so awesome and improve the game so much...they're not you, they don't necessarily see it the same way than you. Like you said : they don't have the same mechanisms. Alternative Activation isn't IGOUGO, and I hardly call that "Double Turn" when said turn talks about simply activation of the same unit twice between 2 turns. It's merely "Double Activation". Words are important, don't try to compare apples with oranges. The true question about Double Turn isn't "is it good or not ?" but rather "do I want to play with that rule ?". Because the rule can be played and can be enjoyed, if you are open to it. But if, from the start before even playing, you don't want to use it (because of many things, one of such being game ideology or another way to describe it : how you see what a "good game" should be), then your mind is closed and you can only have a negative opinion of it. And you miss all the opportunites to play with it, including all the strategies and tactics you can use with said mechanism in play. That's why I understand GW wanting to give more toys to play with it in 4th. From a certain point of view, some may say it's useless because they simply don't want to play with it. But these people don't understand that it's part of AoS, it's part of the game, and wanting to remove it simply means it's a whole other game they want to play. It's fine, but know what you really want and don't try to force AoS fans enjoying Double Turn to think they're wrong in enjoying Double Turn.

About the Twitch chat...there was the time it was launched that mattered and I suspect it was more about internet trolls wanting to troll than real "Warhammer" fans. So I wouldn't really mind it that much, it's not like it's actually representative of the reality.

We don't know enough for me to have definitive thoughts on 4th, but the Spearhead mode will surely be welcomed to introduce the game to new players. A lot of games from other companies tend to forget that player entry is a crucial point for it to live on long term (well...when that said game is really designed to last - and I don't include all the "vaporware" Kickstarter / crowdfunding projects in that field, personnally speaking). I don't care about balance at release, it's not really meant for that (and balance doesn't matter that much anyway, it's just an illusion for tournament players to let them feel like they have control on their skills ). Removing range from melee weapons will at last mitigate the disparity of bases amongst units of multiple miniatures....and stop that stupid conflict of using 25mm round bases over 28/32 ones. Especially when you use Warcry units that tend to have different base sizes in the same unit.

It's not "sacred cow". It's the same thing than Warcry using dice to determine the ressources each turn for using special abilities, instead of a fixed number like command points. It's not really necessary, but the whole game system is built around it and that's what makes Warcry unique in comparison to other skirmish games. It lead to specific tactics / uses you can't see in other games because this feature doesn't exist in them. That's part of the game, and part of the fun...if your mind is open to it. Indeed, you may not find "fun" in that mechanism in itself as personnal taste, and that's fine. Games have rules, you don't need to like them - but you need to agree to use them when you play the same game with someone else. That's how games work : social contract by following the same game rules together, they're not "good" or "bad" in themselves. They're just rules. Some love IGOUGO, other despise them. Not all games are meant for everyone. It's always a personnal taste, and there is no perfect game system to please them all. But there are popular games played by a lot of people...and more often than not, the rules themselves don't really matter in that popularity. After all, a game can have the stupidest, most arbitrary rules ever and still loved dearily by its players, simply because they enjoy the time playing it with others.

Subjective matter here. A game is a game, rules are just a tool and any feature is good as long as people have fun with it. You may think it's not good / required / sensible, but that just means maybe the game isn't made for you. Plenty of people play with it, deal with it and may even enjoy it. As for how it will work in 4th...only when we'll have the full rules will we know. I feel like it's a bit too soon to state it will be bad with the few information we have on it right now.

That's why they said they're introducing more interacting toys for both players in each of their turns in 4th. Like it or not, Double Turn is one of AoS' exclusive features. There's no other game system that has it. Makes sense they want to keep it while trying to make it more fun.

I'll wait for playing an actual game in 4th before making such a statement.

If Ruination is about veterans being reforged too many times but still managing to keep a hold, it makes sense they're not a great number of different units. Focusing on characters and elite like units should be enough.

Battle tactics existing outside of the scenario's victory conditions are indeed an abomination, to me. They needlessly complicate the game and are another thing to keep in mind while you already struggle with your so many army special rules. If 4th completely throwed them into the bin, I would clap with both hands.

Mortal Realms are currently definitely both. Warhammer Battle - aka The Old World - was too in its time, for the same reason and it's not just a question of "those above our pay grades". It's also a question of what's existing already in the background. When you build a new universe, you're not in the same state than when you already have a whole universe with decades of stories / background behind you. In the first case, you have to build a story to create engagement, because otherwise there's no substance to fight for. In the second case, when you have so much susbtance already, you have the risk of getting your existing fanbase for the said substance to get angry when things change - so you don't have the same drive to build a changing story. That's why books / events like Dawnbringers or Soulwar are important, even if they're not always world-breaking events (like Morathi becoming a goddess, it's quite shaking for her faction at its core). They give more substance to this still relatively young setting. And it gives a pivotal reason for the new editions as well. Warhammer Battle stagnated in the end because the background was already dense at that time and existing fanbase wasn't really asking for change. And when GW actually tried to move forward at that time...remember Storm of Chaos ? Well, to me, that's more the explanation of why they instead went on keeping things as they are until End Times.

To be honest, any box involving Skaven clan rats will unavoidably inflate the numbers of miniatures. I mean, who expect less than 20 clanrats as a unit ?

It's already there. That's basically what helmeted Stormcast Eternals are with their bald masks.

Only if you think girls should all have long hair. Beside, it's better to have short hair when you fight. Give less things to grab for your opponent, y'know.

I expect nothing from WC previews, that's how I can't be disappointed anymore.

Yeah, GW's product release is seriously ****** up and it's not gonna get better... Maybe we'll get the 2 Warcry boxes together, at this point.

Edit : mistake

I didn't expect they would reveal the miniatures for the next starter box, it's simply too soon. Gotta keep content for future Warhammer Community articles, after all. I find it really funny they keep making the same mistake with their "end edition" books. I mean, who will be really bothering buying the 6th book from Dawnbringers now, knowing that it will be completely invalidated a few months later ? Well, except from collectors like me. I expect it will be the last book I buy for AoS, though. Like 10th edition of 40k, I believe the new battletomes will be as soulless (meaning no more unit background description, just a few novels barely telling anything about the faction and just boring warscrolls for the rest). I will be fine with free downloads from the site, thanks - and don't forget to download EVERYTHING on day one, for when the battletome is released, GW WILL remove the corresponding faction's cards from their site. That way, you can play forever for free. I have no worry for the 4th edition, it will still be tournament friendly like 10th currently is. Things will change, yes, but it will be still be written by the same team that is tournament data obsessed - and they totally learned from 10th edition's launch to make sure not to repeat some mistakes, I doubt we'll have the Eldar situation. Spearhead mode will be the easy way to play in store and a great way indeed to introduce a new player to the game. Balance isn't that much important, only for tournament obsessed players and drama-seeking youtubers desperate for clickbait. Besides, we know that GW waits for data from played games before making adjustments - no matter how much you playtest, the amount of data you get simply can't compare when the game is actually out and played by thousands of players. That's how they work, gotta deal with it. I won't miss 3th edition, TBH. It was too convoluted, great strategies and tactics system was quickly ruined by some being simply too interesting / easy to fulfill and added needless complexity to victory conditions, and I got tired to constantly follow the meta. It wasn't the "best edition ever" for sure, just the most tournament / elitist player friendly. It was horrible for casual players like me. I will miss the content of 3th edition battletomes, though...they were the best IMHO, with a great balance between background, painting guides, lovely miniature pictures and rules. My true fear lies in the 4th edition battletome' content, because when I look at 10th edition 40k ones comparing with 9th...it's really abysmal and a true downgrade, from my point of view.

There's a place for Khorngors, just not thinking about them being like their previous incarnations (meaning, just marked bestigors). Given the pieces of background of Khorne marked beastmens in AoS being more focused on something like minotaurs (they are already blood-crazed, after all), I can see a role with some kind of hard hitting monstruous infantry. AoS is far from hitting its limits, really. The different factions still have a lot of room for new units, especially chaos god battletomes.

That's what I have in mind mostly - I don't expect the common of AoS people to be that ornated, but still. So far, the way the cities are described in the background makes them look quite alien to what you'd expect from WFB's Empire. A city whose money is small parts of prophecy stones, a city that is split between a realm of fire and a realm of life by portals, a city that was released from amber and is protected by the magical mist created from it, a city that mainly has its economy from the exploitation of a lake whose waters make you forget everything (and is quite dangerous to even just fall into)...all of that has visual influence as well for its citizens. Sure, you can always stick a feathered hat on their heads and colorful clothes directly from our own Renaissance period - but to me, main reason they still appear in GW AoS books is simply because they still sell these miniatures. And GW is all about making sure to promote their products in everything they make. IMHO, once we have the redesigned models released, you can be sure we'll suddenly see very few Empire-like artworks in their future books - that is, anything that is not about re-using their old artwork. So far, the pictures they showed on the previews is more about terrain parts than soldiers - and they're pretty much uninspired (writting "Sigmar" and putting skulls on everything, sorry but that's not being different from WFB like at all). The question is more about what system they're thought for. If it's for armies with a common battletome, the units will need to be generic enough so that you can use them for any city. If it's for skirmish mode like Warcry or whatever they will call it once we're there, the key is more about characterfull models more intended for a small faction like in Kill Team and the Death Korps regiment featured. To me, skirmish mode is much more suited to really distinct different city designs and have specific Excelsis, Living City or Hammerhal warbands. Future will tell, but I wouldn't really take the previewed pictures as really telling so far. They have a feeling of just common stuff made because they had to show something for the Warhammer Fest, IMHO (maybe because of the leaks that spoiled too much of the surprise ? ).