Sabush

Maybe the people who asked for GW honesty aren't the ones raging now? Edit: Also, you can both be upset about the range cuts and appreciate the GW honesty at the same time.

RIP BoC and Bonesplitters. To me, Bonesplitters was expected. And also BoC to some extent, although I would've really liked to see something Chaosbeastly replace them. Seeing the whole Sacrosanct range get removed is a huge surprise to me, considering that they're not that old. Good to see the bloated stormcast range get reduced, however. For me the most negative part of this news is what it could mean for Warcry. Maybe all warcry warbands moving forward will be directly linked to an AoS-faction with inherited specific aesthetics. Which to me is a bit sad because I liked that Warcry allowed for more creative freedom in the design of warbands.

But we don't know what the Regiments look like for each hero yet. Maybe the Snatachaboss on Sludgeraker will allow Swampcalla Shaman in the regiment. It's way too early to draw any sort of conclusion as to what this change might mean for certain armies.

I dislike the double turn mechanic but I can respect if other people like it. However, for the sake of discussion, here’s why I have issues with it. 1. I feel that it makes lower point games unplayable. I understand that lower point games will never be fully balanced, and I’m fine with that. But losing or winning 90% of the time due to one dice roll is simply a terrible design. 2. It is very punishing for new players. In my experience the DT is the number one complaint from new players, and from people who tried AoS but quit. 3. I think it messes with the verisimilitude and immersion of the game. In a real battle both armies would of course act simultaneously, but this is hard to mimic in a tabletop game. But alternating turns does a better job, in my opinion. Having one army just allowing the other one to do twice as much in the same time just feels off to me. One argument for DT that I see is very interesting. Its that competive and frequent players generally like the DT when asked. But to me that is obvious, why else would they play it so much? The people who dislike the rule have most likely moved on to other games, so of course they would be a minority at tournaments etc. The interesting question is then, which players should GW cater to? Should they try and make the current most active players enjoy the game more, or should they try and make the game more attractive to players that don’t currently play AoS (or play a little)? I think removing the DT would attract more players to AoS. But maybe that’s not only a good thing.

This is very interesting! What about different warscrolls that are basically the same but with different weapons? Like liberators/vindictors.

Finished up my small start to a slow grow Stormcast army. Pretty happy with the colour scheme overall. Will continue to add additional models over time.

I’m all for Goats of War!

I’m thinking of doing exactly this!

My favourite is Battleshock Wargaming too! Season of War is great quality obviously, but for me personally I find it a bit too edited with the voice over and special effects and whatnot. Their 40k vids are more my flavour.

My army from WHFB days was Dark Elves. I like them for many reasons: I'm a big fan of Elves in most fantasy settings. I'm a fan of the more evil factions. I like intelligent and clever factions. I'm a huge fan of the asthetics, especially the art from the 6th ed rulebook grabbed me. I like big blocks of infantry and an organised mixed arms military force. For AoS I don't feel like there's a good Dark Elves alternative at the moment. DoK are just the witch elf stuff that I wasn't a huge fan of. The rest of the Dark Elves range is stuck in CoS, and that doesn't feel right to me. Eventually I started collecting Kruleboyz because I like the asthetic and the playstyle appealed to me. But they don't feel 100% right, even though they do tick some of my boxes (Evil, clever, mixed arms).

In my personal opinion, I hope we get an index. Increases the likelihood of USR, and other big changes that I would like to see.

I'm gonna refresh my Dark Elves for tOW. I have a whole bunch of "new" plastic models, Spearmen, Crossbows, Black Guard, Cold One Knight, Black dragon, Sorc, that are mostly painted but would need baseconverters or rebasing. Then I have a solid amount of old metal models: Corsairs, Executioneers, Shades, Bolt Throwers, Dreadlord, Assassin. These would need to be stripped and repainted because they were painted when I was young and the quality is quite poor. I'm also looking at adding a few models, like: Cold One Chariot, Dark Riders. Have some other projects that I'm working on that I would like to finish first (Terrain, Necrons, Gobsprakk), but soon the Dark Elves project will start! That will then be my main and only army for tOW. But a future High Elves release might change things, hehe.

(Apologies for going off-topic) Maybe it's just me, but the way you format your text makes it almost impossible to read.

If he gets a Daemon Prince model, people will start to care

Interesting! I will need to rethink my formations a bit. But would like to play a couple of games first before deciding. Another factor that could weigh in is the number of units I want to have in the frontline. 3+ units 7 models wide takes up a lot of space on the board and could be very cumbersome.

What are people thinking regarding formations? I like the look and compact size of 5x4 for infantry. But I’ve read some comments about people going 6 wide, and 3-5 deep. I’m gonna start by using my old dark elves collection. And right now looking at Spearmen 6x5, xbows 6x2, blackguards 5x4, corsairs 5x3.

Can anyone help clarify something for me regarding Army Composition rules. When a unit says "0-1 per 1000pts", I need to play a 1000pts game or higher to be able to take one, right? I'm looking at playing a 750pts game with my old Dark Elves to learn the rules. But if it works the way I'm thinking it would limit my options a lot: No Dreadlord, no Cold One Knights, No Bolt Throwers, etc.

You should've seen the Skaven-lists in 8th ed

That is one boring Batallion 😅 But I guess the most interesting kits are still in AoS.

That's what immediately sprung to my mind too. But would that have been the case at ITC-events anyway? What about proxys/3D-prints. Have those been allowed at ITC-events previously and is that likely to change now?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/19/itc-joins-warhammer-events-in-exciting-organised-play-update/ "Games Workshop is now assuming management of the ITC as part of our continuing program to support organised play, tournament organisers, and the global hobby community. Independent events are a vital part of the events ecosystem, and we want to do everything we can to back them up." I'm not a tournament player so I'm not sure what the consequences of this might be, but this doesn't sound good to me. Can anyone with more insight in the tournament scene help shed some light on what this all means?

That was a good episode. I especially liked Tom’s idea at the end where he suggested a more narrative theme of a generals journal that weaves the components of the GHB together.

I personally think AoS is worse than 40k in this regard. But maybe not for all armies. (For reference: I play Kruleboyz and Necrons)

I think it would be cool if Foot Heroes would have a built in bodyguard rule if within 3 inches of a battleline unit and can shrug off wounds to that unit. Would give them more survivability and I think it would fit thematically to have them close to the troops. Another thing I dislike is that most Foot Heroes have about the same statline regardless of the race etc. Compare, for instance, a loonboss to a killaboss. 5w vs 6w 4+/6+ vs 3+ 5atk/3+/3+/-1/d3 vs 4atk/3+/3+/-1/2 Same point cost, 90. In my mind, the killaboss should be twice as strong as a loonboss, but now they're the same. And similar examples can be found everywhere.

My 5 cents: Heroic Actions and Monstrous Rampage I feel that these just add unnecessary mental load without adding enough to the game. Essentially they're an additional hidden system for activated special abilites, and we already have command abilities for that. Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics I think Battle Tactics in particular gets way too much attention during a game of AoS. IMO, the game should be about holding objectives and preventing your opponent from holding objectives. Either make BT be worth less points or change so you can only complete 2 per game. Way too much time is spent on deciding on what BT to choose, and it makes the games suffer a lot, especially for new players. Grand Strategies are generally fine imo. Command abilities This system is generally fine to me. But I would remove Rally and change All Out Defence to -1 to hit for attacking unit. Core Battallions I think Battallions should be more about listbuilding and have less affect in game. I would like to see Battle Regiment removed, It's a boring default option and deploying an army should be an important tactical element of a game and a valuable skill test. I would prefer battallions to, for example, unlock battleline options or allow more monsters/heroes/artillery/reinforcements/enhancements. GHB Seasons Keep it as 1 year, but add/switch battleplans after ~6 months. I would also like to include some narrative section and have the GHB tell more of a story and push the storyline. I also think they generally add too many special rules in the GHB. Battletomes I think that the Battletome Battletactics shouldn't be allowed in Matched Play, keep them to narrative or something. For 4th ed I would like to see a few things * Actual good terrain rules * Less mortal wounds * Less save stacking Just these three things I think would improve the game a lot. And personally I would remove priority roll, but I can live with it remaining hehe. Edit: One more thing I think need revisiting is battleshock. It generally just produces feel bad-moments. Sorry if I come off as too negative here. I actually enjoy AoS and think it's a good game. But it has room for improvement!