Flippy

Mostly Citadel, as I use a lot of Contrast paints. I don't like the pots though and prefer to transfer almost everything to a palette. I also use GW shades and layer paints, but not exclusively. For metallics, Vallejo Metal Color. For bases, Vallejo textures.

The absurd amount of Eldar weapons - magnetised and primed.

Very nice! I firmly believe that the model is not done until the base is done as well.

I usually appreciate your comments, as they are grounded in business realities and help to understand why certain things happen in GW. This is a valuable perspective that many gamers lack. But then comes the unsettling part - you seem to actively endorse these “tough but necessary” business decisions. Seriously, man, what’s the point of rubbing the salt into this fresh cut?

I get it, but… I do not have a single proper Warcry band (apart from the Hunters of Huanchi, never used them for Warcry). I have a few AoS armies though, some larger (OBR), some smaller (KO) - and I can open my cabinet, assemble any warband I want, give them names & story and play mini-AoS with this great ruleset. This is perfection.

Chaos-only Warcry = zero interest. I used to check this game out in the past and only started playing once GW pivoted from this weird initial choice.

Some Eldar bases; a small progress- but progress nonetheless.

double

No price too high for the eradication of spam lists.

You sure?

Yeah, and even the “real” choice can be tedious at times. I’m just building Eldar Combat Patrol and there is a very real risk I may run out of magnets… All the scatter lasers, brightlances, shuriken cannons, starcannons. I fell like I’m about to paint a weapon depot. Not much fun.

Agreed. But it is already an established fact that @Neil Arthur Hotep is not a fan of „quartermaster simulators” 😄

I generally agree, but please take into consideration that for many people (especially new players) the distinction between "core" and "niche" is not that obvious and certainly not communicated clearly by GW. Bonesplitterz were niche, sure - but BoC were hardly niche. Are Ogor Mawtribes niche now? Were Aeldari Harlequins niche? Maybe it would help if GW openly stated that some armies are here to stay forever and some are temporary only with guaranteed 10-years support.

A temporary solution, which leaves you watching other factions receive one update after another, while your guys are slowly drifting towards obsolescence. Sometimes a clean cut is better.

I agree. And there is really no "proper" way to communicate such message. I really feel for the BoC players - especially those who do not follow the news closely and have every right to be extremely confused now. Same for Bonesplitterz, even if they were (for a long time now) just a tiny faction and an obviously neglected one. Regarding Stormcast... I would naturally assume that you can still use everything (almost everything?) as proxy and the purge is therefore less impactful than it may seem. Truth be told, I find it difficult to tell their units apart.

The idea is fine. The keywords distribution will be crucial, as it will actually determine the army composition. I hope that, for all this advertised flexibility, they can actually heavily discourage spam builds. The CP as a scarce resource is a welcome change. Just let the game flow without constant interrupts. Some topics are still open - can you buy artefacts and traits for points (hopefully)? Can heroes join units (please)? Are we done with multiple within / wholly within auras to rely on what's actually written in the scroll?

Have you ever seen this in real life? Neither have I.

Yet here we are, discussing Games Workshop game on the AoS-only forum, with our perception shaped by Games Workshop, which is also true for the majority of tabletop wargames players around the world. And yes, the underlying problem with the double turn (and some other mechanics) is that they go against an assumption from some players about what tabletop wargames "should be". The difference between us is that I think this is actually a valid critique.

I would not. But, again, only humans united (CoS) and good wise elves (LRL) have the gravitas to pull this off.

This greatly depends on the kind of game we're talking about. Some games are inherently abstract (chess), some are mostly abstract with some fluff that is obviously pretextual (the "eurogames"). I have no problem with this when playing, let's say, Azul. But tabletop wargames are usually different and they do not draw people in with their smart internal engines - instead they use: - huge amount of lore / fluff; - the models and hobby elements related to the models (painting). This is why seasoned players usually emphasise the rule of cool - actual game rules can change many times while you invest a lot of time / money / emotions in the lore and the models. So, what you would usually expect from the game such as AoS is that the mechanic supports the recreation of epic fantasy battle, i.e. encourages the engagement, dramatic moments and actually "killing" the opposing toy soldiers with your toy soldiers. If you take the more "gamey" approach (e.g. abstract scoring system) you might as well, at one point, ask yourself why even bother with the whole illusion of battle (painting tiny toy soldiers, crafting artificial terrain, naming your characters and units, writing a backstory). Maybe just use tokens and enjoy the smooth and balanced game engine without the whole hassle?

It is interesting, but it's also "gamey". I agree. My issue with this is that (at least based on the AoS Metawatch) the designers are more on the "gamey" side and they apparently think they are doing a great "balancing" job by working with stuff like battle tactics, point values and double turn ramifications.

Couldn't care less. I don't really get the universal appeal of these starter boxes - they only make sense if you want to actually start a new army. As for the good guys that could potentially replace SCE in a box... for now it would have to be either CoS or Lumineth (if GW would decide to push the Vanari vibe more and sideline the nonsense Aelementiri).

So much better. Good job.

Your approach seems to be mainly on the game as a mechanism, i.e. the internal gears, how they work and how the result (scoring) is determined. Nothing wrong with this per se, but this approach can easily lead to a disconnection between what's happening on the table and how you should act to win the game (or how the winner is determined). Wrapping the game around the priority roll (as you said, it must be considered in the listbuilding stage already) and then using abstract points to balance everything out makes the experience.... weird, I guess? Like, my army got slaughtered but I still won on points. Hooray? I don't know how to explain this properly, but when we play AoS and the kids come to check who's winning they examine the table, not a scoring sheet - a very intuitive approach in a wargame but not very accurate for AoS.

I will finish the Akhelian King. Then I will push with Aeldari Combat Patrol; a Guardian squad seems like a reasonable target for April - and I’ve already made a test model.