pnkdth

The rules proposed aren't nearly on the same level, besides we still move like have been, we're not stuck with ranks, block movement and <insert 23492343 other rules which makes AoS different from WHFB>. Let's not blow things out of proportions, is what I'm saying. Pros of the changes: Modifiers being capped at +/-1. More varied builds and killing builds which relies of abusing mechanics. There's nothing good about 1+ re-rollable saves or impossible to hit units. CPs being generated per hero phase. Makes them more tactical instead of encouraging hoarding. You're encouraged to be more active and spend them. Battalions limits entire battletomes in builds and list variety. You'll actually start seeing people bringing units they like as opposed to battalion tax and overpowered battalions. General battalions will only make the game better. Double turn allowing me to burn objectives. Jolly good. Won't be a no-brainer now since the opponent can actually impact your scoring ability. So a take double requires you play well and weigh options. Charge reactions also plays a part in making the double turn more interactive on behalf of the player who lost priority (this is a huge plus for the addition of charge reactions). +1 to armour is pretty neat for attrition for slower units, for instance. Remember, this is just a handful of the rules and they apply to everyone. I want to hear more on shooting and how things are impacted in other phases before I go yay or nay.

That isn't true. Some of us simply want this game to become as good as possible, which involves not having easy opponents just because they wanted to start the wrong army, i.e. we want competition and fair play. Sort of like those who stood against ESL because they didn't want a special group people to have an unfair advantage and some having to compete over scraps. The latter part is especially relevant to this discussion. As for the rest of your post, even the guy you claim believe this has already clarified he doesn't. Yeah, we agree with you. You shouldn't be able to take whatever in whatever combo with no thought behind it. Misunderstanding someone's point is not the end of the world. Let's move on, shall we?

Abhorash is also a character which I could see making it to AoS in terms of lore. The guy literally walked away, bored of the infighting and drama, to meditate in seclusion after curing himself from the thirst for blood. There are also other character which are suitably resilient and refuse to die (The Red Duke). Though when it comes to Abhorash this opens up the possibility of representing noble warriors who strive to master their blood thirst. As a character he probably would have stood against Nagash since he never was onboard with the debauchery and hedonism of the Lahmian courts. I imagine meeting up with Neferata could get awkward and a nice source for intrigue. Speaking of intrigue, with Nagash gone from the spotlight I hope that this opens up a more interesting dynamic between the power players in the death factions. Nagash as a character always has to fail since he has a world-ending goal in mind but the general theme of the vampire counts have always been to rule one way or another over a mix of mortal/undead empire (Necrarch's being the exception since they're pretty much aligned with Nagash in terms of end goal). All in all, I'm hoping for rules which accommodate various bloodlines, arcane or martial focus, to create undead with a lot of character.

That's where I'm at as well. It is a more regal version of the keepers, floating above the rest. Their wings/fins/things? gives them even more dark angelic presence wearing them as if a fine robe or dress. I'm cautiously optimistic on additional rules but those in the know seem to be excited.

I think this is more or less the ideal. Sort of a "easy to understand but hard to master"-design. This design would be on a clearly defined spectrum to ensure we don't end up with a chess situation where everyone are playing the same army with a different paint scheme. In that regard, I'll happily accept there will be some imbalances and meta shifts. A game which remain static is boring and would probably die. On the other extreme, I don't want a game which is so hard to get into that we eventually end up with a small group of die hard fans and then it dies. My main issue with recent releases though (LRL, DoK, HoS) is how they appear to be written with three completely different design philosophies. That said, out of the three HoS is the only one without BR rules (and those twins look pretty rad). In short, I want better consistency and updates which corrects units/battalions which end up being under/over-costed to mitigate the extremes. It would make the scene more interesting overall, whether it is casual or competitive.

Yes, though I'd say the issues I raised here applies to kitchen table games too, i.e. if certain armies can win by pushing models forward while others needs precise measurements and micromanaging abilities merely to function there's an issue with how battletomes are designed in relation to each other. So I think we can learn from both settings in terms of skill ceilings and mastery levels. That said, if things get really bad perhaps the community will simply decide to go back to comp scores or even unofficial points changes. This in turn might inspire GW to perform more frequent erratas and points changes.

Looking at more recent data (the feb 2021 TTS on honest wargamers) we see Seraphon winning 500% more than other factions, twice as many top3s, and half of their players end up in top10. Are you saying that all good players just happen to choose Seraphon and that we've had a massive influx of really skilled players (who also just happen to choose Seraphon)? I would say the data suggest that this army allows for otherwise unremarkable but decent players to earn top placings and great players to net even greater results. Tournament players value consistency. Swingy armies are not worth their time because it gets in the way of their objective, to win. You can see it in the BoC data from the same batch. At first glance you see 60% win rate, and that must be good, right? But then you look at placings and you see a single top10 placing. Why? Because BoC don't win big. In contrast the higher placing armies like Seraphon, LRL, IDK, DoT, do. Indeed, the other side of the coin of 'git gud' is the hard to swallow fact that certain battletomes will contribute to the success of a player. Both are uncomfortable since they chafe at our egos. But just to be clear, I absolutely believe good players can get good result with most armies. It is the just the top and bottom pile that needs a look at cause the former excels in the current meta and the latter has to jump through way too many hoops to win (and rarely get a top placing despite winning more which must REALLY add to the frustration).

More is more, I say. Under normal circumstances the battletome would probably have been out for awhile now... And, well, two amazing models in a kit which will give you a lot of extra bits to kitbash and use for your sculpts. As far as I'm concerned BR have given armies useful updates and boosts while pushing the narrative forwards interesting ways. As a hobbyist I love that we're not stuck in a static world that never changes. Narrative battles becomes so much more than rehashing the same old story over and over again (if that's your jam you can just go back in time and say your army is from X time period). All I know is I'm a happy hedonite.

You got a point there. Most of the time when an army is having a great time in the meta it is due often a single build or a few problem units, not the entire army. If we can count on one thing is that the tournament scene WILL find that broken combo and crank it up to eleven. I personally like the underdog armies, coming up with new army lists, and making "sub-optimal" units work. It just comes a point where some armies needs a proper look at. I like what they're doing with BR at the moment even if it is more stuff to buy and I hope we'll see some boosts to Sylvaneth, BoC and BoK in particular.

If your opponent would suddenly bring on 12 players or two keepers on the pitch you'd probably have something to say about it, or maybe your opponent decides to pick up the ball with his hands and throw it in the net but you're not allowed to? Analogous to under and over-costed units and/or objectively more powerful units/rules. Battletomes serve as a force multiplier. A skilled player will run away with it and some armies are even able to thrive when used by otherwise unexceptional players. In casual games, where the majority of play takes place, if these battletomes has too much of a gap between them the game will suffer. It is inevitable that some armies will be better/worse given the diversity of armies and playstyles but at the very least we should be able to expect SOME level of consistency between the armies in terms of game design. DoK, HoS, and LRL pretty much look like they were did for different games. First is hugely practical and powerful, the second barebones but also very neatly designed IMO, the latter is a bloated mess of useless, frustrating, flavourful, fun, and powerful rules as if they added everything they could think of. None of these approaches are wrong I just want them to be more consistent (especially when we're talking about three tomes released so close to each other. That said, I think we shouldn't underestimate new players. They probably understand that they won't be awesome day one but I did hear from people when first getting into AoS that I could pick whatever. Fortunately I read up on stuff myself before investing more money. Rule of cool is everlasting but similarly if you buy shoes which doesn't fit you probably won't run far. In this regard I think it is good to be honest about what to expect because much like has been mentioned WHFB/40k/AoS never have been very balanced. For the majority of time in WHFB for instance I only came into contact tournaments with comp rules (to those unfamiliar, your army list gets points depending on how powerful your list were and the filthier it was the larger the impact on your total score). I was going for a point here, I think, and think it is to give new players the right set of expectations. Some armies will struggle immensely and if that player doesn't see themselves as someone who wants to delve deep into the game that kind of army won't be for them. As a community we should be straightforward with that while also mentioning that many armies will sometimes have a bump ride from being top to low tier. Also, your local meta matters a lot. Another dataset I'd like to see more of, i.e. the collection of armies at local events.

Mechanical advantage over lots of armies = high consistency and high tier army. Competitive builds therefore do not limit the army and can happily and reliably compete against the vast majority of other armies and builds. Mechanical disadvantage over lots of armies = low consistency and low tier army. Competitive builds rely on the right army to show up and has a very low probability of going 5-0 during a tournament. This goes neatly into the equation I posted earlier. Popularity, win/loss ratio, consistency in wins (going 3-0 or 5-0) which tells us what bad match ups are and how an army wins, or if an army sinks or floats when facing diverse list of opponents. Then there is the much harder to define "fun" and "anti-fun"-mechanics. For instance, if key abilities go off on 4+ (or even 5+) is that good/fun design? Shutting down abilities, auto-casts, or generally removing agency and control. I think that is why LRL has gotten such a bad rep, not because they're the best of the best but because some of their abilities lead to a frustrating experience even when you win against them. - I don't think when people say unwinnable or similar they mean it literally. Literally is just overused and misused. However, I still think you can fairly easily discern which armies have sunk too close to the bottom of the lake and who are enjoying their time in the sun. Things can very easily turn hyperbolic online though and quite antagonistic, i.e. if you believe that then you must also believe this! Outrageous!

Viable, which performs on good enough level in all metrics. A below-viable army would be an army which has a limited competitive build, has a lot of bad match-ups, and has to fight much harder than the opponent to win. Hence why I brought up the how you win as being important + the additional factors I detailed because they cut through the noice of good/bad players using X or Y army. I've also seen low tier armies beat higher tier armies, it happens, but that does not mean there is balance. Sometimes the better player and/or luck wins out. That is also why I maintain that win ratios can be skewed when it comes to low tier armies since they have such low representation and, usually, are played with highly experienced players who's dedicated a lot of time and effort into that army. Meanwhile, when you see popular meta-lists racking up the wins a good deal of players will not be there because they happened to really love that army (in that case the army would *always* be that popular) but from players who want an easier time winning (which does not mean bad players). Note that I'm not throwing shade anyone in the tournament scene for using a powerful list. That's just how the scene is and everyone is expecting the toughest lists in the game. Fair play, game on.

We also need to factor in popularity since the number of players matter when measuring outcomes. For example, an unpopular army is more likely to be used by a player who is stubbornly trying to make their preferred army work at all cost whereas a popular meta-chaser build will attract people who just want to win and will use whatever is the most powerful army. The former might inflate the number of wins whereas the latter will usually deflate the number of wins. In addition to popularity + win/loss ratio, consistency matter a great deal too. As in, you can barely snatch a win or you can steamroll everyone and do it over and over again. The top tier army all rate highly on all their factors. Having low tier armies which manage the odd win here and there does not show they're a viable army. In short, how you win needs to be factored in. I believe there is a platform in development trying to solve this for AoS (saw it on one of thehonestwargamer YT vids).

I guess we were right in speculating that the release schedule seemed smushed together. Surely explain why there has been such rapid fire releases... Also, my jaw dropped when seeing this. Hope it leads to new exciting hosts and fun stuff for us to represent the return of the newborn twins.

Glutos can be a real MVP. His effects and -1 to hit aura is useful (and it isn't 'wholly within' just 'within' so has quite a reach). Seeker Cavalcade is generally accepted as Hedonites most competitive battalion due to extra movement + it makes slickblades better. That 6" activation and pile-in is great, it really lean into our fast and furious advantage. Lurid Haze is arguably out most competitive host option with its powerful redeploy and stellar command ability (+1 to saves). Yeah, don't forget those DPs BUT do not compromise your battleplan just to get them. Objective play > DPs. Don't save for something big if you can make impact with with a lesser summon which gets you points. When and what will become an easier choice with experience. There are some hints of the newborn Slaanesh will appear later in BR series. Unless the great threat being referenced in BR:Teclis actually is Be'lakor rather than Slaanesh. I'm hoping for more host options or something like that (similar to what Nighthaunt got in BR:Be'lakor) to give us both advance is the lore. Maybe even an updated version for all three host + extra options. On the other hand, with 3rd edition being rumoured the newborn Slaanesh might be a part of making Chaos the main big bad again. In other words, no one really knows.

I don't think we're quite there yet. Watching a batrep between DG and DA and it was a lot of dice-rolling for very little returns. Then you also remember that the vast majority of armies don't have those rules and you end up in a pretty bad situation. That said, I agree, less is more and the rules needs to be more consistently applied with a design document every single battletome team must adhere to. The results have been pretty uneven. Then again, GW can't do major releases for everyone. However, the least we can expect is more sensible quality control and testing.

Yes, like I said I don't want AoS to be dominated by elite units or pave the way for hero hammer. Effectively becoming an arms race where eventually you're not a resilient unit unless you have a 2+, 4++, 5+++ and reduce damage + 3 strats on top of that. We've already seen units with coming in with transhuman always on too. That is why I think it is good a humble clanrat unit can pull down a BT under the right circumstances and prefer the way warscrolls are handled in AoS. As for which system is better, I left 40k because I got fed up with the direction it is headed (rules bloat for the bloat god!). I think you are right in that AoS could do with some more interesting objective play as the auxiliary objectives feels kinda tacked on. Neither system is perfect though. I'm not fanboying for AoS, just happen to prefer it more right now.

That's what I don't want that for AoS. I want larger blocks and elite units to have teeth and to be able to drag down bigger targets. Without them all you have against big scary characters are other big scary characters/monsters. I'm also not terribly happy about how insane some characters are in AoS nor how obviously better some are than others. God-level characters should never had gotten rules other than for narrative games but it is what it is.

Looking at 40k have S & T doesn't actually help, we'll just see another meta. Having each warscroll balanced like in AoS means you won't have to radically change your entire army just because GW decide to arbitrarily nerf one option over another. Also, a skaven rat doesn't have the same chance to kill a BT as Durthu unless we're talking about being able to chip off wounds which happens all the time in 40k. Personally, I think the AoS way is a nice way to stay away from hero hammer and have large infantry blocks fill a purpose. I like to imagine it as the skaven turning the BT into a pincushion rather than personal skill and the combat playing out in real time as opposed to taking turns. So it wouldn't actually be a lone rat doing the killing but a combination of everything. I'd really like to see them adjusting points cost more frequently (and especially for order battletomes). BoK is such a bizarre example because despite being all about glorious close combat and powerful warriors they're all just a mess of mindless berserkers. You don't even get a feeling like they're a threat to anyone but themselves. Better testing process to catch obvious nonsense, yep, no argument there. Though judging from both AoS and 40k I think what is really needed are more rigid design guidelines for what and how things will be done in each edition + a standardised process to update and/or adjust older battletomes and codex.

10 of them with whips + Lurid Haze CA could be pretty annoying to deal with or at least tie up units the opponent wants to be elsewhere. Not the tankiest unit in the game but speed helps with getting there before numbers dwindle too low. If we assume Seeker Cavalcades this could help you dictate the game further. The extreme choice being to cannibalise and kitbash them into a Slickblades. That said, it be hilarious if one of BR books then makes them more viable again.

How about a low drop Seeker Cavalcade list with something like 4x5 hellstriders, 2x5 slickblades, Glutos, Bladebringer on exalted chariot. This should end up at around 2k points. If room, there's always room for more seeker chariots in the Seeker Cavalcade to maintain a low drop. A good mix of spears/scourges gives you a mix of utility and offence.

I've been sitting and toying around with different kinds of lists (as I like to do... too much) and I haven't really looked past allies bar the obvious (warriors or even marauders). Previously in this thread there was a list with Fomoroid Crushers (which adds some muscle , MWs, extra ranged attack, and terrain disruption), Mindstealer Sphinx (for bravery manipulation), and so on. I've seen Archaon lists too but at that point I think the list becomes an S2D list. I believe someone mentioned Blightkings too. Have you all explored any allied units and how did you use them? If so, I'd like to hear more! As usual, it doesn't have to be tournament viable stuff, cool and creative stuff too.

What I'm seeing with the Infernal Enrapturess is a story about corrupting a society or community. It can take different forms and has been responsible for leading many to their doom or on a path to glory as a hedonite. You can also make more individuals stories about <insert person here> follows X obsession into madness. Then either add a horrible twist of fate of becoming a piece of what that individual was obsessing about. I also don't mind hellraiser-fanfic if it is good but you can also have Glutos-style stories as the person in the story goes deeper and deeper. When it comes to the various daemonic leaders or heralds they're all daemonettes serving a different roles. They're not actually different kinds of daemons. The Contorted Epitome, for instance, is a weaponised mirror. Handled by two herald attendants. You could delve more deeply into the creator of the mirror, you could have an individual seek a prized possession, or it could just be a particularly vain individual getting lured in and trapped by the mirror. Slaanesh does seem to like to hand out punishment too in cruel and poetic ways. The shardspeaker itself is interesting and there's a lot of cool ways you can go with it. Like what you're doing, for instance.

Both Symba/Myrm are listed as Twinsouls/Twinsouls not Twinsouls/Painbringers.

I'd argue our book is better designed than LRL. Our problems can be solved with a simple points adjustments and we're not saddled with impractical rules or bloated warscrolls. They've managed to create units with character without writing an essay. A concrete example, if the LoP/Shardspeaker gets dropped to 120-130pts alongside Blissbard Archers down to like 140 then suddenly the Depraved Carnival ain't such a bad deal which means we can combine it with a seeker cavalcade. Suddenly we're a two drop army. The shardspeaker is no longer a liability and the LoP can add in that wonderful CA re-rolls for mortal units. Or don't, and simply save points for the rest of the army. Another, if our elite foot soldiers gets a reduction (170 to 150, 150 to 130) then Nobles of Excess becomes more viable. As mentioned in other posts, Lurid Haze adds a redeploy and a really good CA to increase saves. Hellstriders were brought up and I honestly think some players are sleeping on that -1 hit and 4+ save. If you're rocking up with Glutos or Fiends (summoned or not) that can create serious problems for an opponent's elite units and monsters. All potential points adjustments adds up to more units, which means more wounds, which means more DP... And so on. It all adds up. I'm hesitant to buff up the Locus since it could quickly spiral out of control. Reliably being able to charge in and pretty much shut down the combat phase would be extremely powerful and could create a decidedly unfun experience for the opponent. I'm not a huge fan of 4+ rolls and in the case of the Horrible Fascination it is such niche ability I don't really understand why it couldn't be an always on ability. But yeah, adjust the points a bit and I think we'd be good. That way those abilities become nice to haves which sometimes goes off.