Ferban

There's also a command trait that can turn the Troggboss into a Monster.

I'm sure there are many people who agree, but I just wanted to provide a quick counterpoint. In 40k, the tagline is about it being "only war." Its dark and there aren't really any good guys. I know people for whom that is a big turnoff. But AoS is more hopeful. Yes, most lands have been blighted by chaos and there are many, many bad guys (even much of the Order pantheon is filled with what should be considered bad guys). But the Stormcast have thrown off some of the tyranny of Chaos and the Cities are actually attempting to expand. It's far more hopeful. It's blood and war now, but the fight is to secure prosperity and peace. I think rising to a nobler ideal is going to call out to some gamers more than grimdarkness will.

Yeah, I liked that one a lot. I've only read one C&T short story, so I assumed a lot of the background had been covered in other stories. But I would love to see them show up as returning characters. Hammer & Bolter goes all over, but maybe we see them once or twice a year as an ongoing or recurring Hammer and Bolter episode. I wouldn't say no to their own series, though.

So long Lord of Hubris and Phantasmagoria combo. We hardly knew ye.

I don't think soup tomes are necessarily a bad thing. I think Orruk Warclans suffers from: (1) being the first tome of the new edition - before they really got a handle on things like unique heroic actions and monstrous rampages; and (2) trying to push/hype Kruleboyz as the new model range. If a new tome came out now, I think we'd see much more flavor and more equal attention paid to each faction. That said, I'd really like to see Big Waugh! amended to incorporate all destruction factions. In the lore, you see grots, Ogors, and gargants along for the ride. I'd love to see that in a rules form (whether contained in the OW tome or some other book) that allowed much freer ally options. Maybe the general has to be an orruk, but then 1 in 4 units could be ogors, 1 in 4 gloomspite, and 1 in ... 6? gargants. Or something like that. You'd probably have to tweak the abilities and Waugh! energy so it didn't get too overpowered, but being able to field a multi-faction Waugh! like in the stories would be great.

I got WH+ the first year and, while it probably didn't quite deliver for the price, I overall thought it was fine. There were lots of animations, and several series. At first it was weekly, then they went to an every-other-week format for animations. However, this year has been relatively poor. Many long stretches with no animations. I get that they need to build up a library (it's not Netflix or Disney+). But when nothing is coming out other than Loremasters, Masterclass, or battle reports, it's hard to stay invested. I'm not a huge fan of battle reports to begin with and the WH+ ones aren't anything special. Masterclass is neat, but my painting ability isn't really high enough to make use of most of the tips. And Loremaster used to be really good. They'd take a character (like Abaddon or Nagash) and go through his life - something that would take bits from many different sources. More recently, they've just been taking a faction and describing it - the exact sort of thing you already get from a battletome. So either they are re-hashing a tome I've already read, or describing some faction I'm less interested in. I'm hopeful that Blacktalon will be good and we'll see more animations in the coming months. But I'm going to have a real hard time staying subscribed in August (I bought the year) if things don't start picking up substantially.

I kinda like the idea for AOS. I'm not a huge fan of constantly measuring (for moves, charges, and pile-ins) to make sure my units stay in various bubbles. If it just applied to the given unit always, it would be a nice quality of life upgrade. I also think it would dis-incentivize castle builds since there will be fewer auras. Which is probably good? I know Warhammer seems the most fun when you have lots of units clashing all over the board. Less fun when there's just one death-star blob. The article also hints that some shooting or other abilities may be able to target leaders even within a unit. So I'll defer final judgment until we see what that looks like.

My knowledge of 40k is extremely limited. So maybe I'm just naive. But when I read that I just assumed that "Detachment" was the new name for "subfaction." They seem to be filling a similar role. Or am I totally misunderstanding?

Awesome. Also looks like the KO FAQ went up as well. Pre-release! Just one change to an Aether-Khemist ability. We'll see if it gets a fuller update in a few weeks.

Same with the Lord of Afflictions and Pusgoyle Blightlords. But both are units of two.

So I have accumulated a few models that are New on Sprue that came in various Vanguards or Start Collectings that I need to pass along. I figured I could go the Ebay route, but is there a different site or method that people have found more success with? When it comes to the FOMO boxes, I know there's lots of talk about buying it and then selling the side you don't care for. What's the popular way to do that? Any insight would be appreciated.

Not responding to you in particular, just using this as a jumping off point re BGG. BGG has lots of titles beyond strict board games. But it is primarily a board game site. It caters to boardgamers and reflects their opinions. And not just boardgamers in general, but the kind of gamer that also spends time on BGG. I've been on BGG since ... 2006ish? It's a great site and offers a lot of utility. But there are already big divides within the community itself. As an easy example, you can look at the BGG top 100. Euro-style games with low conflict and low RNG are quite overrepresented. That doesn't mean those games are "better" necessarily. Just that the kind of person who likes and uses BGG tends to prefer that kind of game. It's not surprising, then, that the further you go from that genre, the lower the ranking is going to be. And, in my experience, there does tend to be a small (though vocal) group of individuals who really dislike GW as a company and downrate many of their games. Two other minor points. First, there is no enforced criteria in BGG rankings. It's not uncommon for a game to have several high (or low) ratings before it even comes out. And many users rank games without a single play. Hopefully, that all comes out in the wash as statistical noise, but it shows the problematic nature of using the aggregated scoring for any definitive purpose. Second, when a game is first created in the database, BGG "weights" it by giving it something like 500 dummy votes at 5.5. Or maybe its more votes (1000?), I can't recall. But the purpose is to prevent a game with one or two ratings from shooting to the top of the BGG list. You need enough plays to overcome those dummy scores and see the game move. Since my guess is that relatively few BGG players are highly involved in miniature wargaming, it would also be unsurprising to see those games with lower scores due to the initial weighting. Which is a long way of saying that I think the BGG ranking is a fuzzy tool at best, and probably not worth much at all when looking at miniature wargaming.

Speaking only for myself (and I am a very casual player), having only three units in the box isn't super enticing. Especially since I'm not sold on the Raptordons and won't be until I know their rules. But if there is a wider variety in the box, well that starts to get more tempting. If Raptordons are sort of the "extra" or "bonus" models in an otherwise good box, then I'm much more likely to pick it up. But if I feel like I'm paying a lot for models I may never use? Then I'm more likely to wait and pick up individual units later.

I think the tome updates should, more or less, be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It should update the rules to comport better with 3.0. It could add in some heroic actions or monstrous rampages when warranted. And it should align with the new philosophy that choosing a sub faction no longer locks you into an artefact or command trait. I think the meta shakeup is mostly seen with the GHBs. And I'm OK with that. If you want a highly evolving game where good units become bad and bad units become good, I think the GHB battlepacks seem to do much of that. But if you are just playing with your mates and having a good time with your army, you probably want some level of consistency. Seeing the squig movement change is a great quality of life improvement. That's the kind of thing I want from new tomes. That, and making the army feel like the lore. Not every 3.0 battletome has been a banger, but the majority have been improvements in those terms (even if they aren't giving significant power improvements).

Don't forget warscroll cards!

Well if they think they can support 30k and 40k without too much cannibalization of their own audience, they probably see AoS and ToW the same way. Plus, I think if ToW stays as a rank&flank game, and AoS stays on it's circle bases, the gameplay itself is likely to be different enough to avoid too much overlap in audience.

Totally agree. I have high hopes for the new Gitz book, though. My preference would be to see (nearly) all gitz warscrolls as kinda bad. But under the light of the bad moon, they get really good. Similar to how Nighthaunt are pretty bad in a vacuum, but the allegiance abilities really make up for it. Maybe under the light of the Bad Moon, they don't take battleshock (cuz they're all hopped up on moon fanaticism). Or they get bonuses to hit and wound. Or they suddenly do impact hits on the charge. Or even extra rend. Or some combination of all of the above. And make the moon semi controllable. So that it isn't just there and gone. Give the player some method of controlling it. Maybe you still roll, but the player can add or subtract one from the die roll for every five enemy models killed that round. The Bad Moon will continue to orbit a battlefield where the grots are celebrating it. Or maybe it circles the board, but never gets removed entirely. Or maybe even a heroic action that can be used once per battle to re-set the moon to a location of your choice. There are a lot of options here.

I'm quite a casual player, so factor that in on my perspective. But I'm very, very glad they didn't separate it out like the space marines. I like that it's all one book, gives the standard 4-6 subfactions, and then I can go to town. From a casual outsider (I don't play 40k), having a codex and then codex supplements seems like a headache. Also, if I want a thematic one chamber list, I can totally build it. So it's not like I have fewer options.

So I came to AoS during COVID and have loved it (AoS, not COVID). My son and I also got into Warcry which I really enjoy as a light game we can play on a school night rather than AoS which (while awesome) takes several hours. I hear a lot about Mordheim but don't know much about it. What about it would be superior to Warcry?

It was mentioned above, but the Gloomspite novel does a great job of representing the horror of gitz. It's something that I hope the new BT will show better on the table. I think rather than spitting out a few, unrelated buffs, the Bad Moon should take what would otherwise be pretty bad units and buff them into something remarkable. Sort of like the approach with Nighthaunt. Nearly all NH units are pretty bad by themselves. But they get really strong with all of the NH battle traits (Ethereal, Frightful Touch, debuffs on the charge, etc). And the Bad Moon should either just exist for the battle or at least be semi-controllable by the player. Right now, it's a pretty big bummer to lose all of your battle traits to bad die rolls.

I've been wanting to go back and look at some of the unsolved rumor engines. Is there a particular place I can go to to see them all? Google gives me some very dated results.

So it isn't explicitly said in the article, but it sure seems to imply that Dawnbringers are going to be part of Cities of Sigmar (maybe a replacement faction like SBG for LoN?). If it is going to be a larger narrative event, maybe it just starts there and goes outward. But the implication seems to be that it will be part of Cities (maybe a sub faction or portion like Ironjawz and Kruleboyz in one tome?).

I think "troops" is just a catch-all. If you aren't one of the special categories, then you're "troops." But I also wonder why they have the Artillery designation. There are few artilleries in the game and even the ones we have are mostly (with a few exceptions) indistinguishable from regular shooters. I really wish they'd make more artillery and have it have more specialized roles. The beastkilla kill bow is a great example of something that definitely has a use, but outside of that use is fairly lackluster.

I really like Warcry and, so far, I've enjoyed 2.0. Not every game is for every player, so if it's not for you, that's totally cool. But I think about it as its own thing. I don't look for models that fit my other armies. I appreciate it as a skirmish game that: (1) I can easily play on a weeknight when I wouldn't have time for a full AoS game, and (2) is relatively simple to get a few warbands in order to have everything needed to play when a friend comes over. I have friends that will never play AoS and don't want the expense, but who don't mind sitting down to a game of Warcry using my models. If I looked at Warcry through the prism of how it benefits my AoS play, the value for sure isn't there. But when I look at it as it's own game and the additional gaming opportunities it presents, I'm a big fan.

Prediction time: I think we get to know the identities of the two Destro battletomes AND I think they will give us a new "roadmap" of additional tomes. Between Kill Team and Warcry, they've been really into "roadmaps" lately, so I think that's likley. That might be it. But if I take some hopium, I could see them showing off the new leader from each destro tome or maaaybe confirm a battle box for the two factions.