pnkdth

Fair enough. In this case, perhaps they're reaffirming it now without leaving the human side in the shade. Also, when you think about it the Salamanders can link up quite well with SCE. Perpetual primarch and replace fire with lightning. Not a one-for-one but the Sallies are encouraged and allowed to remain in contact with the past lives which also being a chapter who willing put other humans before their own lives. For me it isn't a question of 40k vs AoS. There are differences and parallells.

I think that is why it works because it isn't you typical sci-fi setting with sleek armour and energy weapons. The writing was on the wall with the changes to Imperial Guard, errm I mean, CoS. I bet they're thinking since Space Marines are successful they gotta space marine it up with new grimdark SCE. Hence the "Sigmar lied" trailer and announcing the ruination chamber. Doesn't have to be all bad since it is something you can work with, i.e. both the struggle to remain human and also include those who are too far gone. Gives the setting some very real stakes for the immortal warriors of the god-emperor, darn it, I mean Sigmar. The DA aesthetic is knights in space so that makes sense.

I intend to as well. The good thing about all these skirmish games is that they're almost infinitely reusable (the models anyways). Plus they really spice up more advanced board games. Necromunda feeling much like Mordheim means I can create all kinds of cool units. Can't believe I turned a blind eye to this system for so long since they really let me realise the "dirty dozen" vibe I first feel in love with in 40k (The Last Chancers and Imperial Guard). Also, this game is the perfect outlet for making use of my random stack of minis. I don't think I'll ever get rid of my Drukhari (or Dark Eldar as they were known as back then) though. Even those ugly as heck warriors in the earlier editions. They're a part of my hobbying journey and will stick with me to the end.

I admit to feeling some anger but mostly I feel deflated and disappointed. I had already started exploring other games ever since they started with their Activision Games Workshop shenanigans. Not boycotting GW as a whole but AoS/40k isn't on the map any more.

Plus, BoC isn't going OOP. Without scarcity there's no incentive to buy high. They're just moving over to TOW and most people who might be interested in TOW BoC probably is looking at all the AoS BoC players for a cheap deal. Which ironically means BoC will look it is having poor sales in TOW as well. For AoS, it wasn't much of a riddle. BoC was given no minis, questionable rules, bare minimum of attention, and be like, hmmm, I wonder why people aren't buying into this "brand new faction which definitely isn't just a bunch of repackaged WHFB models." Which gets even sillier now that they're being repackaged again for their original game system. Perhaps this is the chaos gods going full meta to ****** over the GOATs.

As more of the pieces all into place I think they listened to much of the feedback, notably, adding in more agency and counter-play during the opponent's turn (spell casting and counter-charges in particular). Counter-charging has obvious uses and we shouldn't sleep on being able to move up and position a spell-caster to threaten. Casters/priests who has to get up close might just get a bit more mileage out of them too. On first impressions it looks better than 3rd, that's for sure.

The might get the odd update, sometimes, but for the most part Legends is the slow death of a faction. Eventually (or right away), the rules do not keep up either by being incredibly bad and/or not making much sense with future updates. The biggest slap in the face as far as BoC is concerned is the army won't actually becoming OOP but instead repackaged for TOW. So the usual argument, and common practice in the tabletop industry, that it makes sense because OOP, doesn't. They could have kept them around because they still will be. I guess it is hip to be square, as a beasty boi. Humour is a fine coping mechanism, I hear.

SBGL too. There's no imagery which connect it to a certain kind of abhorrent ideology. They're classic 'bad guy' colours.

A point which often glossed over. It isn't just the rules and army that goes, it is everything put into them that's lost too. Sometimes it even turns into blatant gaslighting, e.g. "It is only plastic toy soldiers, stop being upset." GW's business model is build around their players getting more and more attached, not only because cynical side of using sunk cost, but also because the army becomes a part in how they interact with the hobby overall (building, paint, playing, reading, etc, etc). When you take time/effort/money away from someone that someone is understandably going to feel aggrieved.

Yepp, most of the deleted units/factions will be used in other games. AoS 4th has to become a massive epic bombshell of a game for me to even consider it again. Deleting BoC like this isn't a trivial little thing where you can proxy it. Rule of cool works as long as the rules somewhat lets me play in a manner suitable to the lore. Anyone who claims S2D can even come close to what the current battletome is does not play BoC. And to those who say "just play ToW" is giving off the same vibes as Activision when they said "don't you have mobile phones?" Maybe I was naive but I was hoping for a FEC revival for BoC but I guess not. I wish I could be more positive but I'm just so deflated. BoC getting a refresh in 3-4 years is nothing but copium. So yeah, I'm thinking I'm done as well.

In that case, I admit I misunderstood the whole deal. I was thinking this was Primarisification and "look at this new cool unit which is the same as the other just better." However, since you can use them interchangeably, no harm no foul.

How is that the same thing? I don't keep tabs on release dates but for the most part WHFB models which has been replaced is a fair bit older, no? Most of the new-ish sculpts have remained in factions like CoS too. New units are fun. Barely indistinguishable units are not. I guess it depends on the level of investment and/or willingness to seeing you army replaced in a fairly short amount of time. I think it more realistic to expect them to keep the "firstborn" SCE while pushing the sales of the units. GW very rarely resolve internal balance re-shuffling internal balance in a way that's customer friendly. I mean, I definitely hope the old models remain relevant for those who does not want to buy a new army but, again, it seems very out of character for GW to incentivise using old models while releasing brand new ones.

And not to be that guy, but I'm getting major 40k vibes. This essentially an accelerated version of primaris and turning old models obsolete ever quicker. I can barely spot the differenc so any SCE player could just rebase their models and I'd be non the wiser. Seriously though, for AoS to move so quickly past established models is strange. They've barely established SCE "firstborn" or chambers properly before bloating their roster even more. Of course, more cool stuff is good but this is the bare minimum since it doesn't innovate their roster as much as it is iterating on existing units. I don't have any skin the game but if I were an SCE player I'd be a bit annoyed. It is like they realised the SCE roster is bloated but rather addressing the issue they created a new improved unit while leaving the rest behind.

I am definitely not in the Mordheim is perfection and I do not seek a one-for-one copy. I quite like the underdog scenarios and decisions made mindful the long campaign. I think that more than anything is what I am looking for. Necromunda might be something. Haven't looked into it much yet though.

Personally, it is was the setting and vibe + all the flavour 'Town Crier' added. I'd love to see a Warcry plus, complete with lots of extra gear, exp gain, etc, etc. Give me some janky yet flavourful rules, GW!

It isn't just the hyper-competitive people who enjoy playing "the right way" but new players not wanting to end up playing a game no one plays. Modularity is great for when you already understand the game and introducing AoS to someone who is brand new to tabletop gaming (taking it one step at a time). Overall, I am not expecting this to blow our minds. Looks good as a presentation but the format is very familiar. For example, you can already choose not to use the GHB and stick the matched play rules only. Ultimately, even the most casual gamers enjoy games which are as fair as possible. That doesn't happen when playing open rules. That said, if the rules are presented in a more practical and clearer way everyone's a winner.

People will find excuses no matter what. Good players should be getting consistent results because 'uncertainty', in my book, does not mean it has to be sheer randomness. I find it more engaging to have to have to make tactical decisions and games which involve more phases and straight up meat grinders. It is by no means perfect but it creates satisfying games.

That's what I'm banking on. 10th 40k (and mission cards) and the managed changes had me kind lukewarm but I've really warmed up it. Mission decks, from my POV, is 40k's way of creating uncertainty and tackle mathhammer and also making it more difficult to solve the game.

That's good to hear. Yeah, I do not expect it to change any time soon, if ever. I do appreciate the feeling of a book myself and complete revamps won't happen every edition.

To me it is the 'uncertainty' element of 40k. AoS have priority rolls and secondary cards in 40k means you can't auto-pilot your way through a game, i.e. castling up and creating a death ball isn't viable because you can't score if you bunch up too much. Without I think it would be too easy to 'solve' 40k by simply fielding the most effective units at killing/tanking. Instead we see lists making use of units which are focused on objectives (or 'schemers' as they're know as in Malifaux). Their role isn't about producing the most dakka but rather protecting the back line, securing objectives, and so on. In this regard, I enjoy 10th and the list feels more dynamic and lot less mathhammery than before. Once I got used to the new systems/rules games do run a lot smoother than 9th too. Really hope USRs and consolidated rules work out similarly in AoS 4th (while remaining distinct enough not to become Fantasy 40k).

Looking forward to the shake-up. 3rd edition has become a bit of chore to play with the bloat that's been added over the years. Hopefully the USRs and reset will address things such as every unit needing some kind of 6s cause MWs or similar, or causing a gazillion mortals wounds on a charge. However, the deal breaker for me is how wounds (or appropriate toughness) and points cost reflect the actual units themselves. Because if they point armies to the, well, point where it becomes even more expensive to enter the hobby I'm out. Love the settings GW have created and I know that every designer are really passionate about what they do but recent times the business side of GW have really put a dampener on my excitement, e.g. I am very glad I didn't jump on the FEC bandwagon just yet because they will got WE:ed. Rob's (THW) advice to never buy any books until they figure out a better way of supplying rules is legit. Especially since, apparently, the newer books (especially in 40k post index) are even lighter on lore/art/hobbying than before while remaining expensive has heck. But to end on a positive note, for awhile the rules will be free, there will be new ways of playing the game. I'll hold them to their promises that the indexes won't be watered down and sub-factions and so on will still be there as 4th go live. Here's to brighter hobbying days going forwards. Cheers!

At this point GW should just get rid of the grand alliances altogether. Just give factions an ally/coalition chart with appropriate factions. Silent People doesn't seem to care much about others unless they disturb the nest which seems like the polar opposite of other destruction factions. If anything, those factions seem the most likely to end up in direct conflict with them (the Silent People). Now if Silent People end up going full Tyranid, i.e. it is time to nomnom the world, then that is as destruction as it gets.

The honks are stonks!

I would love to see some kind of Necrarch-line if SBGL complete with double cast Vampire lords (but weaker in melee). Thats pretty much the only thing I miss from the SBGL which otherwise a really good tome. Edit: Since we're talking characters. Zach or Melkhior. Seems like these sneaky death lords also have a viable reason to "somehow they returned."

The point is we should do both. Not trying to run away from AoS characters nor kill off/ignore old world characters. I don't want it to be at the expense of either. Unfortunately, GW's writing tend to focus squarely on the heads of the factions. Unless they want to sell a new model they might give us a few breadcrumbs, i.e. most characters in campaigns tend to get lost to wherever once it it done. In my perfect world old/new builds on top of each other.