GrogTheGrognard

After seeing the jokes on the rumor thread about the platypus dragons I now unironically want them to be a thing.

All Stormcasts Eternals are actually two skaven and a halfling stacked on top of one another in a suit of armor.

EVERYTHING IS GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN! On a slightly more serious note I do like how CA is trying to make every faction feel more unique on the campaign map as well as in the battles. I hope they continue to do this for all the new factions as well as the old ones. I mean beastmen used to get the short end of the stick but with their update now they are perfect for what beastmen should be.

My take on benchmarks for AoS would be as follows. 1. The 60ish wounds per 1000 points is a good starting point (obviously some exceptions. Looking at you BCR) 2. Have 1-2 good sources of MW per 1000 points (with the lack of good rend options I really have to recommend MW to get past good armor saves) 3. Have some sort of movement shenanigans (It could be a unit that moves faster than the standard 6 inches or can teleport around the board but being able to move and move quickly is very important. Turtling only works with a minority of factions) Beyond those I think it comes down to your personal playstyle and army.

Positive things about AoS 3.0? Well......... Let's start with absolutely gorgeous dragon riders and dragons being brought into the limelight! I love me some dragon riders and even though Stormcast isn't my main army I want those models so bad. GW does show that they have amazing sculpts to make and I can't seem to get enough of some of these new models. Also, there's the rumors of pirate Ogors which will hopefully flesh out the more Mawtribe side of the Ogors versus the BCR that most people seem to use. I just love to see my chonky boys running around the battlefield trying to take a bite outta everything. MOAR OGORS = MOAR GOOD! Other rumors about chaos dwarves is interesting as well and I'm waiting with baited breath to find out what they do with them. Finally, more Path to Glory stuff is always welcome in my book. It does need a few fixes but it's still a good move as I loved the crusade rules from 40k so bringing that more into AoS is great.

My idea for a good starter to AoS 3.0 would probably be Stormcasts for a few reasons. First, they're very easy to paint and I think that's important for helping newbies into painting and gaming is making it as easy to paint as possible to begin with. Secondly Stormcast Eternals are a faction that allows for some mistakes and can still recover which is important when considering how many mistakes a new player can make I wanted them to have a faction that can handle that. Thirdly, it's very easy to get second hand Stormcast Eternals stuff for cheap since many box sets offer them up as the order faction (you'll almost always be able to go half in for a battle box and still end up with models you'll use). Finally, Stormcast can really interact with all phases of the game to some degree which not all factions can do. Allegiance: Stormcast Eternals- Stormhost: Hammers of Sigmar- Grand Strategy:- Triumphs: LeadersLord Arcanum on Celestial Dracoline (200)*- General- Command Trait: Shock and Awe- Artefact: Hammer of Might (Aetherstave) - Mount trait: Aetheric Swiftness - Spell: Chain LightningBattleline5 x Judicators (200)* -Skybolt bow -1 Shockbolt bow5 x Liberators (115)* -Warhammers and shields -1 GrandhammersUnits3 x Evocators on Celestial Dracolines (280)* -2 Grandstaves Artillery Celestar Ballista (140)* *Battle Regiment Here's a list I feel can be taken many different ways with some shooting, magic, and melee so the new player can find their own play style and what they enjoy before expanding their Stormhost out. I also feel like most if not all of these models are still going to be good regardless, so there's little to no worry about invalidation of your army by points increases and the like. The only thing I wish I could add would be a monster so they can try out the monstrous rampage rules. EDIT: Updated list it was out of date. Had to make a few changes but the core remains the same.

Northstar Military Figures has a wide range of models from many different lines. Some are metal, resin, or plastic. I haven't gone through them all, but the Oathmark ones at least have some hard plastic options like the dwarven heavy infantry I mentioned before. Wargames Atlantic is also one I've heard about but they seem much more limited in what hard plastic options they have and aren't as good as GW miniatures, but are significantly cheaper. You can get a box of 30 guys for around £26. Which is pretty nice especially if you want test models to try out paint schemes on without feeling like you need to be perfect.

For me what is most important about the model depends on what the purpose/background of the model is. For example if we are talking about a dwarven battleline unit I want my dwarfs to be almost uniform in their looks with minor variants for the champion, standard bearer, and musician. My thoughts are that these dwarves are in a unit working together and dwarves would be almost lockstep in their uniformity so they should look solid, little to no difference between the models, and be able to rank together easily without fighting the models into place. In that case I'm not looking for a hyper-detailed model for each because that would be time consuming and somewhat counter intuitive for what I want those dwarves to be. A solid wall of dwarven steel ready to fight. That's why for battleline units I prefer Oathmark units (dwarven heavy infantry are amazing for this) if possible because they have reasonably detailed models that can be made to look very much the same. On the other hand if we're talking about a standalone model like a Lord of Change I want that model to be hyper-detailed because that model is supposed to stand out from the chaff that surrounds it and be a centerpiece of the army. As such I prefer a company like Creature Caster for their beautiful sculpts that while as expensive as the same GW models offer a new look and have such amazing detail in resin that I can't recommend them highly enough (The Queen of Malifica is a model that literally got me into play DoT). Such a model needs to be able to command attention while looking at it in my opinion because that's what such a creature would do on the battlefield. You don't ignore a Lady of Change when she's coming up to unleash magical destruction upon you. You sit up and take notice of the doom that approaches (even if sometimes the dice make her more of a bottle rocket than a massive explosion). Now when it comes to painting I switch between modes. Sometimes I just want to sit back and start slapping on some paint which is when I try to focus more on my battleline units because I don't feel bad if they turn out less than perfect because having 20 dwarfs next to one another makes it difficult to pick out flaws small or large. This is usually when I'm more painting as a side activity and talking with my mates around the wargaming table and let's me do some work while also enjoying their company. Other times I'm trying to be a perfectionist which is when I focus on those centerpiece models to get them juuuust right and even if I don't make it as good as I'd like I'm content that I put in some effort and they look decent. That all being said I do agree that GW has gone a bit overboard with the gubbins, gizmos, and dynamic poses every character seems to have now. Sometimes I prefer the less is more approach especially with foot heroes and battleline. If everybody has these crazy experimental looks I feel it lessens the majesty and mystery that more centerpiece models should have. If every chaos warlord looks as freakishly awesome as Archaon it lessens Archaon's impact to me. To quote The Incredibles "If everyone is Super then no-one will be." You need the basic to make the elite stand out.

The only difference I can see is the one sent to NQA had the person's real name as they had signed the NDA. It still has the fact that the NDA is confidential information and therefore illegal to share in any form without prior GW written consent. Still has the odd definition of restricted customer that included anyone who was a client employee or in the habit of dealing with GW. It has the weird noncompete clauses from the original. Also the indemnity clause from the original as well. If you want to find the screenshots of the doxing and other events I found a link to them on reddit which is also where I found people trying to get NQA Pateron removed (which is extremely terrible behavior and I whole heartedly condemn). It seems like from the screenshots I saw Goobertown Hobbies may have been pushing NQA buttons to the point she doxed the guy (still doesn't excuse what she did as doxing is a horrible thing). On the point of assuming it's real. I say the next action to take depends on GW's action. If GW decides to go after the whistleblower I would say to help the whistleblower's legal defense through crowdfunding and let GW know that it is not okay to go after whistleblowers like that. If GW instead comes out and admits the NDA is real, but they are not going to try and enforce it and will change the NDA to be much better I would say to keep a close eye on GW and maybe even ask to see what this new NDA would look like just to make sure they aren't trying to pull a fast one of admitting they will change and then doing nothing to actually change the NDA.

I'm just going to point out that I checked out who was doxed and they're not even a major battle report content creator. It's a painter. Not a playtester or battle report maker. A painter was asked to sign the NDA and was doxxed when they decided to whistleblow. EDIT: Honestly this entire situation is so terrible. NQA shouldn't have doxxed anyone and I'm still struggling to understand the reason why she did so, but I also can't stand the fact that some people on reddit are trying to get NQA Pateron banned because of this. Its become so crazy on the lengths people will go to both attack and defend things now.

A bit off topic but as I recall wasn't that actually a leak of the playtest rules for 6th edition 40k? It was rules that were given to play-testers for GW and some of them leaked the files so it wasn't an actual fake, but it wasn't the real 6th edition rules either? Honestly, can't remember I can only remember those rules included alternating activations for units which is one thing I'd like to see for both 40k and AoS.

Just a quick note I didn't get a chance to read the whole thread before posting this so if someone else answered just ignore this part. Part 1.1 (ii) notes that the existence and terms of the agreement is confidential information. Which would make them unable to disclose the agreement terms and existence unless they were to have GW prior written consent I believe. As for whether or not I believe this is real.... I honestly don't think GW has been making a lot of good moves lately but this feels like a step too far that not even GW would be foolish/malicious enough to make. The legality of this document seems suspect to the point I couldn't believe competent lawyers made it. That being said if someone else believes this is true I honestly couldn't fault them for holding that opinion. My inability to believe any lawyers wrote this is not evidence to it's authenticity or lack thereof.

Well one army I can say has some of the worst/best points to cost ratio is Disciples of Tzeentch horrors. A unit of splitting 10 pinks costs 215 points that could split into 20 blues and 20 brimstones which would require three boxes. 1 box for the pinks and 2 boxes for the blues and brimstones. Total cost £75 for one unit! That's double what it cost for a single stonehorn model and is less points. Funnily enough if you go the alternative route of vengeance pink horrors it flips since you pay 215 points for a 10 man unit only worth £25 which is better points to cost ratio than making that single stonehorn a FLoSH. Also, you could take a box of blue/brimstone horrors and make two units of horrors one costing 140 (blues) and the other 115 (brimstones) points for only £25. Just thought I'd share that gem since I find it funny. 😆

Interesting charts, one quick question though. What is the snowflake and DnD award? I can't seem to figure out how those ones were awarded.

One quick question I have is are we sure that warscrolls are no longer going to be free? The only reason I ask is because I can still see the downloads for the old stormcast models like Evocators but not for the new ones like the Stormstrike Chariot. I could see them waiting to drop the warscrolls when the book is finally for physical sale, but I also don't know if GW has put out any information regarding if they are discontinuing the free warscrolls. Because while I do agree that getting rid of the free warscrolls is a bad move I want to make sure GW is actually making this move and it isn't just something to do with updating their website. I'm all for offering GW criticism when they do something bad, but I want to make sure they're doing something bad first and not just taking time.

Most of the posts here wanting people to paint have just generally wanted one thing 'an effort made to paint the models' it doesn't have to be right away, it doesn't have to be perfect, but at least try. That's what the posters who want people to paint their armies are asking. Now you are fully within your rights to say that you don't want to paint, and refuse to do so. Alright that's your personal choice, hobby how you want to, but don't call those who want to see painted armies 'elitist', and then turn around and brag about how your a 'perfectionist modeler' who spends hundreds of hours assembling your army versus a 20 hour speed build.

TFH would probably stand for Their Finest Hour hero ability.

I do often engage with the people who are painting or even have painted their armies and want some advice for the next time they try their hand at painting. Our group is average sized so we have a good community there where almost every weekend people are gaming on Saturday and hanging out on Sunday for painting and assembling new models. Now sometimes people show up on Saturday to paint/assemble and sometimes people game on Sunday which is fine as I think people should game when they can and paint when they can, but there is almost always someone there myself or others ready to offer not only advice but also brushes, paints, and pallets for anyone who wants to paint. Heck sometimes we even just have a painting weekend where everybody shows up and mostly just paints and sits around talking about 40k/AoS or any other wargame that might be interesting. So all in all if someone isn't making an effort to paint their army it really starts to show in our area because there are so many opportunities to paint that you would have to be willfully ignoring them to not make some progress.

Well seeing as how I have Grognard in the name I guess this is a topic I'll need to comment on. Now would I play with someone who hasn't painted their army? The answer depends. If someone is obviously new and has just started playing the game or starting a new army they think is cool I have zero issue playing against the grey tide. That being said if time passes and they make zero effort to even try to turn the grey tide into something I find myself not wanting to play with them much anymore. And I'm not saying it has to be golden demon levels of good, heck even three slapped on coats of different colours is fine for me as long as I can see you put some measure of effort in painting something I'll continue to play. I have and will continue to play with people who have brought in the grey tide and seen over time it turn into the primed tide, then the partially painted tide, and finally the finished tide. It's a truly wonderful moment when two painted armies clash and war for objectives on a well crafted board. The aesthetics can be just as pleasing as the game itself if not more so.

Personally, I think you may be comparing 40k and AoS too much to each other. While I do agree that foot heroes are mostly terrible when it comes to fighting baring a few exceptions (Gotrek for one), but I think foot heroes are mostly supposed to be support pieces rather than army smashers like in 40k. In 40k you can build a smashy space marine captain, or custodes who could easily crush 1/4 of your opponents list or more by themselves. AoS on the other hand most foot heroes can have a hard time fighting their way past a block of 40 clan rats if they are left on their own. I think that's the point of AoS though. If you just go with foot heroes then mostly it's the army that has to pull the weight and win the battle not the individual leaders. If you want an individual leader to smash the enemy army then they need to be of a more monstrous variety to have the power to crush everything in front of them (or be Gotrek). Now if anything should be done for foot heroes I don't think dropping the cost of the hero would be best. If the model only cost 50-70 points but still had the same rules sure it might be spammed more often because it's cheap but you wouldn't feel like the model is much cooler. They would be doing the exact same thing just for a cheaper points cost. Now giving them more aura abilities might be a good way to go if you wanted to improve them and make them feel better as a support piece, but AoS 3.0 seems to be trying to move away from the buff stacking that happened in AoS 2.0.

Well to be fair to the argument made in the post you quoted you don't have to have signed up for W+ to endorse it. Like all those celebrities that endorse cereals or fast food joints. I highly doubt they actually go to a Subway to eat or wake up to a box of Wheaties cereal. Endorsements are separate to actually purchasing and using the product endorsed. Personally I disagree with this statement in the current societal climate. You commonly and recently can see companies and websites that just reversed their decision not because of a well thought out and constructive piece of criticism, but because the outraged shouting got too loud for them to bear. It doesn't take them weeks/months it takes them days/weeks to change course. Honestly outrage is like ork dakka. If you have enough it doesn't really matter what target you were aiming at because something is going to hit the mark. Now would I personally like it if companies were more receptive to constructive feedback presented in a calm and concise manner rather than outrage. You bet your bottom dollar I would. I just don't think that's the way the it works right now. Outrage seems to beat calm discussion 9/10 times.

At the end of the day this boils down to if you value Warhammer+ at $6 per month or not. Some will value it at $6 per month, some higher, and some lower. Personally, this doesn't seem to be something I really need. I can find a wealth of tutorials for my painting needs online to the point I don't feel the need to pay and add more. Ditto for battle reports. Animations I've talked about before and don't really feel the need to dredge it back up again. Old WD would be cool, but I already have a backlog I have to get through so maybe I'll consider it once I've finished with those. As for the mini's while they're nice I don't feel either of them is $6 a month nice for me since I don't have a use for either besides kitbashing/diorama making. All in all I'm gonna give W+ a pass, but maybe others will find enjoyment out of it.

I would assume that if the house rule agreement is to not take Amulet of Destiny on a 10+ wound model then any artifact that functions in a similar fashion (ward save of 5+ or better) would also be out. My personal question for the OP. Do you think there should be a limit to how many monsters someone brings to the table, baring armies like SoB that are pure monster, for a better experience or do you find that no matter how many monsters someone brings it doesn't change gameplay too much in either direction?

To get more on topic I want to bring up a company that is much bigger and has in my opinion a much better stance on fan works. Wizards of the Coast. WotC stance on fan works is simply that it can't have their trademarked logos, and it has to be free. Now let me explain the free part. WotC allows fan content creators to make money by being on platforms like Youtube or Twitch and even have things like Patreon accounts. The content you produce simply can't require you to be a Patreon supporter to receive it. This means that fan animations, fan fictions, even fan rules (as long as they use the open game license) are not only encouraged, but WotC may even use those fan works themselves! WotC seems to desire fan content and it has paid off for them in dividends. 5th edition DnD has grown to become a massive RPG system and more people are drawn in regardless of actually playing the game or not. I've seen artists who never play the RPG buy DnD rulebooks for artwork to inspire themselves. In contrast I have never seen anyone buy a 40k or AoS rulebook for inspiration unless they actually play the tabletop game. If GW wants more fans, and more fan creativity they should start following WotC's lead and make fans want to create for them. I mean who honestly expects any new fan animators to be both inspired by AoS/40k and decide to start animating fan works in the AoS/40k setting? I could see people being inspired by what's on W+, but I doubt any of them would start by animating in that setting and would instead focus on a more welcoming community like, The 9th Age, Overwatch, WotC, or even Battletech. Then, even if those animators get good enough to join W+ why would they? The community they would have built would be with a completely different franchise rather than the AoS/40k community.

2. What basis are you even using for that assumption? Did you even read Alfabusa Patreon post? He made one August 2nd. In that post he seems to be happy about the community support he has received and is already planning on hiring someone full time to keep working. Hardly the actions of someone who's burnout. 3. GASLIGHTING ALERT! GW has made some changes to how they plan to enforce their IP laws especially with fan animators. They have also been gathering up fan animators for Warhammer+. You can say this is good bad or neutral, but what I can't stand is you pretending that it isn't happening. Don't gaslight and instead argue your actual points and you'll find more people willing to change their minds.