pnkdth

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.

Yes, it has to be done in a way that makes sense. Air dropping characters out of nowhere never feels good. Has to track with the old/new world dynamic. - To the confused emote-enjoyers, I'd love it hear what actually confuses you about my previous post.

The old and new is connected. AoS is the continuation of what came before, after all. I am also convinced AoS would have ended up a resounding fail if GW tried the "kill everything old, here's the new cool game." All of the big characters in SBGL is old world, DoK is basically only here because of Morathi (old world), Malerion is old world, Teclis/Tyrion/Eltharion, and the list goes on and on and on and on. AoS is still warhammer. Having an old character come back in a cool way is fun. I do not think AoS is any danger when it comes to identity or anything like that. AoS is the round based skirmish/army hybrid whereas TOW is the RnF game. They're visually different. I guess I struggle with understanding what's so icky about being connected to WHFB/TOW. It was a game which preceded AoS and now it is a game which adds to the background of AoS. For example, me watching Andor only made Rouge One even better. Horus Heresy made 40k better. Otherwise, we need a completely different IP if the old stuff is an issue. I struggle to find anything that's uniquely AoS in AoS. A lot of it is just rebranded units from WHFB. KO is just mecha-Dawi, FS is just slayers, SBGL is just VC with a copyrightable name, etc. To get somewhere close to a point is the identity of AoS is WHFB+. Setting is bigger, more extreme, goes even further in mixing magical sci-fi and fantasy elements together. That is what makes AoS what it is to me. If a new or old character makes sense in the setting I'm A-OK with it. TL;DR: The more you try and distance yourself from WHFB/TOW the more obvious the connection gets. AoS already has an identity shown by how people talk about the minis (almost every 40k content creator I follow keep raving about how awesome AoS looks) and the game is constantly sneaking into previously 40k only channels. Just recently Play on Tabletop started doing their "40k in 40 minutes" for but AoS. TL;DR of the TL;DR: AoS identity is both defined and solid enough to handle another old character returning in an AoSified manner. I mean, the fact we say AoSified alone should indicate AoS has a very clear identity at this point! Happy hobbying, in the old and new worlds/realms!

Very much hope 4th does something to revamp primary/secondaries and rend/MW/saves. Plus trim a lot of the bloat that's been going on. Don't mind more interesting sub-factions but there are layers upon layers of rules which just makes the game tedious... Not to mention the fantastic idea of introducing more and more markers/counters to keep track of. Personally I am a huge fan of the 40k detachment rules since it doesn't demand you play X faction in this way only. A side note, selling off your army (like some people apparently did) because of something like that sounds really odd to me since everybody knows there is no way in heck GW is going leave SM players hanging for long. I got a feeling they're going to regret that choice very soon.

This makes me want to try a "beseech the gods" type of list. Quite a nice lil' glowup.

A fun thing to do is to create your own book of grudges based on games you play. Back in the day I used it create my own lore around my Dawi army. Basing in on battles, I added short lore snippets. In a way, your local meta shapes your hold's history. My opponents appreciated it as well (especially those who beat me regularly ).

From a gameplay standpoint I do not think BoC fits with S2D at all. BoC in S2D would just be a bunch of cultist level units with barely any reason to exist and the rest is already represented in one way or another bar some big monsters. The flavour and style of the current BoC battletome, i.e. the raider/skirmish and sacrificial themes, would be completely lost. Especially since BoC would, at best, get some watered down sub-faction where X unit becomes battleline.

BoC is going to become an order faction and be integrated with Cities. I think that would make the least amount of sense and anger the maximum amount of people. Let's gooo!

Chorfs wave one, two, and three!

Yeah, the Matt Ward situation has been debunked numerous times but it keeps popping up. GW is afraid their own talent getting too talented so rather than using that kind of individual draw they do the corporate thing and try to "protect" their IP. GW haven't quite caught on with how social media works and that influencers draw in new customers yet but they'll get there in 5-10 years. For example, Blanche's style of drawing is iconic and is heavily associated with warhammer. If you google his name the first thing you find is 40k art work. That kind of recognisability is fantastic since GW doesn't have to lift a finger to get exposure. Fans of X will get exposed to Y(GW) simply because of being interested in X. Protecting your IP is important, for sure, but I think we'd struggle to find even a single person who doesn't understand the minis being produced by GW is a part of the warhammer IP.

I usually trim the hedges because I noticed when trying to spin my 'pile of shame' into something positive like 'pile of opportunity' I was just deluding myself. These days I try to strike a balance between buying and hobbying. The only excess stuff I keep is used for kitbashing or the odd terrain piece. The rest goes one way or another. In other words, I'm thinking in terms of 'good enough.' Both in terms of plastic pile and ongoing projects.

Eh, also a longer corridor to set up a charge. Depends on how you deal with it and some armies are better than others (both for and against). I also played 6-8th. I'm not arguing there's no liability but getting it right will hurt. I also remember using the Slaanesh spell which gave frenzy to great effect with HoC and, for a limited time, Cult of Slaanesh (DE campaign faction which was tournament legal).

It is a challenge but it you played Witch Elves or similar you'll get used to it. Not sure if chaos will get furies but if they do (or something similar) it is a decent way to ensure the unit cannot charge the wrong unit. If desperate, simply blocking the unit so it cannot voluntarily charge. That being said, chaos warriors are fairly slow and wasn't the competitive choice most of the time. Khorne cav should have play though. Even hard hitting units seem to have a fairly low number of attacks so the +1 atk from frenzy is more valuable than viewing it from an AoS lens. Assuming you still get +1 atk from it that is.

That's a pretty bad take on what I said and a real tired take on "don't you know GW is a business?" I mean, of course bloody of course, they want to make money. Yet here you try and say I don't want people to be excited to spend money on GW when you know exactly what I mean. I mean, I could just turn the argument around on you and claim GW should triple their prices because people would be even more excited to spend that much! Just think of the massive cash injections!

That sounded a lot less cynical than you first framed it, i.e. massive cash injection, which lead me down the path of assuming not so free rules but rather to wring as much as possible out of each new reset/edition.

That's one heck of a depressing thought. I don't think I would buy a single tome ever again if they go that hard into monetising their players. I probably would end up selling off everything I own and boycott GW. I understand that "GW is a business" but that's miles past the line of what I'd find acceptable. Then again, much like the video gaming industry their preferred target audience is, let's put it politely, very 'resilient' when it comes to be offered worse and worse deals.

I love this stuff. Have them contain maps and time-lines detailing important events and how they connect with each other. Other wish-list items I have is an updated Liber Chaotica for AoS. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Back when I was deep in 40k I used to get all kinds of adjacent books like the tabletop RPish game Inquisitor simply because the book fleshed out just how not at all unified the imperium is and there's lots of competing ideas and, well, corruption taking place. On the very surface level 40k might appear kind of "GLORY TO THE IMPERIUM OF MAN! SPACE MARINES KICK ASS!" but once you take a slightly deeper look below that it is quite clear the imperium is losing or, at a good day, holding the many enemies back. Furthermore, the common saying "everyone is evil" is a similar oversimplification because it is the setting which is the real enemy (the desperation, greed, short-sighted incompetence, bureaucratic indifference, vast machine which has to go on, etc, etc). In other words, I love these world-building & RP books. This is what really gets me invested in a setting since I prefer to write lore for my own armies and characters as opposed to reading about X or Y characters. That said, I am not opposed to those either, just that those stories feel more weighty when I have a better understanding of the setting they're in.

100% agree. If you have a point of confusion or two you should have to articulate them or remain silent.

Age is just a number. #grindset #sigmarmale

This. Having a TOW forum would focus the fantasy inclined hobbyist to this place rather than splitting the community, i.e. having people look elsewhere for TOW discussions. I know I would certainly appreciate not having to run across more forums.

None. BoC and Hashut worship (Chorfs) would mostly likely be mortal enemies since Chorfs want dominion and amass power to fuel their industry whereas BoC would do their very best to put sticks in their wheels so to speak. Hashut is about greed and tyranny... And fire. FS have a very different kind of "fire" theme since it is organic wheres Chorfs' fire and steam power come from the furnaces and war machines + daemonic fire entities. In other words, overlapping themes does not mean overlapping interests/motives since their origins and results vary greatly. Which is why it also makes little sense when some suggest BoC would work as a Destruction faction. Because if we go down that road most non-order factions could easily be put in Destruction too. https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Hashut Has more on Hashut. Old world lore but it gives insight on Chorfs and how Hashut may interact with AoS. It also makes me very interested in what the design team comes up when Chorfs enters AoS in force. Very exciting times.

Aye, the hobby (not just GW) is getting better and better. More is more!

And with the entire line gone and rules legends it makes me hopeful for one heck of a release. As in full, from the ground up, reimagining for AoS.

The question I have is why people keep focusing on this group of players. Let them wallow in their self-pity and bitterness while the rest of us enjoy the hobby in whichever form it takes. I'm quite excited for TOW since I used to play a lot back during 6th-7th edition. I know I won't be gatekeeping anyone just because they bring/proxy AoS models because this hobby is expensive enough as it is. I'll just be happy for a game regardless of the setting.