Chikout

That's the whole point though. GW are allowing this army at their own event. The key is to submit a list early that clearly explains what each unit is supposed to be.

Ricki is a great example of what's possible. He got permission to run this army as Ogor Mawtribes at a Warhammer world event. It rather gives the lie to the idea that GW doesn't like proxies or kitbashes at their events. It's really just 3d prints they don't like and even then a 3d printed helmet or weapon is usually fine.

Yeah I'm with you. I think they'll save the two centrepieces for the full reveal. I'm expecting a minor Stormcast hero and maybe the Skaven warmachine since it already leaked.

Box set name??

I'm not suggesting trying those modes wholesale rather that you look at how they do scenarios and scoring in 4th and perhaps import them into matched play in place of battle tactics. It's sounds like you've got a group who actually talk to each other. That's the envy of many players who are limited to pick up games. Why don't you try a few practice games with various adaptations of the rules and find something that makes all of you happy?

This feels like a themed tactic more than a fair one. It's definitely the hardest but we've literally seen half the picture when it comes to battle tactics. Does death have a second harder tactic and Destruction an easier one? On first glance it would seem fairer to move both those tactics to two units, but perhaps time will prove us wrong.

Path to glory and spearhead won't be including battle tactics. Even if you don't play those modes it might be worth looking at how they do scenarios and possibly importing them into matched play. If you've got a regular group who plays together it's a perfect opportunity to play fast and loose with the official rules.

Well ignoring the fact that I had that rule wrong, I feel like you're arguing both sides of the coin at once. All Warhammer except perhaps 1st edition adeptus Titanicus has fundamentally different factions. Some are good at shooting, some at moving, some at combat etc. Unless you change that basic premise of Warhammer you are always going to have missions and objectives that favour some factions over others. The job that GW has is to avoid pushing those differences to extremes while still keeping the objectives tactically interesting. I don't think there are any tactics we've seen so far that are impossible for any faction and aside from the player going first in turn one I don't think there are any that are automatic. Even in the first turn scenario, you can prevent take the flanks by stacking your army on one half of the board during deployment and blocking access to a flank. The first instinct is that a high movement army would be good for reclaim the lands but a really good way to make sure there aren't any enemy units nearby is to kill them. A Fyreslayers army might be going for that tactic in turn 4 instead of turn one. A valid complaint about the tactics is that they can be a solved system where you pick the same tactics in the same order every game. A set of tactics that have some way to counter them should help with this. Refreshing the list once a year should also help.

Oh right. That's down to me being stupid then. The opposite is true. Targeting a weakened gargant is easy.

Yeah. Every unit moves, every unit fights. One way to stay away from enemy units is to kill them. I think they've struck a reasonable balance so far. That said AoS and indeed all Warhammer games are fundamentally assymetrical by design. That death battle tactic looks easy unless you're up against 4 megas. Having to take one down from full health in a turn is going to be tricky.

If Fyreslayers can still tunnel it won't be that hard. The obvious counterplay to this battle tactic is to zone out one quarter of the board. The best way to score it might actually be to take out a unit in the centre of the board to clear some space. A big hard hitting Fyreslayers unit might be well suited to that.

With a more limited pool of battle tactics, there will be plenty of cases where taking the double will allow you to deny a tactic to your opponent. If neither of you are scoring tactics that turn, the benefits of the double remain.

In Japan all third party stores charge full price. There isn't a discount to be had anywhere. They do this for everything. A six pack of beer costs the exact same price as six individual cans of beer.

The article directly says the ghb tactics release faction specific ones. Here's hoping they stick to it. Also adding flavour text makes a surprising amount of difference. Now that the rules jargon has been tightened up, I really would like to see gw add more flavour text back into the game, especially on the warscrolls.

How can you say that when we haven't seen today's article yet? The concept of battle tactics isn't a problem, the way they were executed in 3rd was. Take slay the warlord. There's nothing uninteracive about that battle tactic. It reinforces the narrative of the game rather than going against it like some of the book battle tactics do. If the article comes out and it's all the same as before with tactics for doing non interactive nonsense then I'll be right there sharing my disappointment with GW but it's not time for that yet. I'm not sure what is so lacking in immersion about the rules we've seen so far. I admit that battle tactics is probably the most important aspect of the game that's problematic but I'm at least going to wait until I read the article before I make my mid up. Praying is more thematic. The list building is narratively logical. Interactivity looks to have been improved. AoS has always been an objective control game. That hasn't changed.

During lockdown I made a chess grid for a warcry board and played warcry over the internet with my sister. It worked surprisingly well.

I went back and listened again to the Warhammer weekly episode about battle tactics and read a few Reddit posts about it. The most surprising thing I saw was that it was mostly new players defending the system. As a long term but relatively inexperienced player it's the sequencing that I find problematic as the phases got broken up into more and more pieces. Choosing battle tactics to go for is a minor issue. The real problem are the lack of counterplay and the inequality of the book battle tactics. The easiest mitigating solution is to remove book battle tactics and to ensure that the core battle tactics they have all have some kind of counterplay that lets the opponent have the chance to deny them. There is potential in the system, it's just that the first stab at implementing it was poor. I'm sure they've been bombarded with emails and comments. I'd be very surprised if the design team didn't watch the Warhammer weekly show about battle tactics. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now especially as everything else they've previewed so far looks pretty good. Of course it's entirely possible that if they are bad, the community just ignores them. We did that with the old scenery rules after all.

They're worth the same proportion of victory points as they are in every current battleplan. In the new version it looks like there will usually be 10 points up for grabs rather than the current 5. I definitely share your concern about the battle tactics article though. I have a feeling it's going to to be the most debated article of the preview.

It's weird that we've had all this talk but noone has mentioned the ways in which AoS attempts to make heroes unique, namely heroic traits and artefacts. We know that command traits are being changed to heroic traits but we still don't know what they are or how you choose them. Is it still one per army? We also don't know how artefacts are chosen as the battalions are presumably gone. If you take your slaughter priest then give him a heroic traits that grants a 4+ ward and a weapon that adds 3 damage to his attacks, you've suddenly got a pretty decent blender.

I use citadel because I'm colour blind and switching to another brand would mean learning what all the colours are. More tutorials use GW paints than any other. GW paints are easier to get hold of than other brands where I live and apart from the white paints I've been pretty happy with them over the years.

The photograph has been around for a while but we still have paintings. If there's a change it will be that commission painters will struggle but anyone who enjoys creativity will still want to buy unpainted minis.

She announced that she was stepping down back in January. It's not entirely surprising that someone leaving a long term job would sell their stake. The stock price is down for two reasons. The first is that GW announced the reduction of their dividend. GW has been paying a lot of it's profit to share holders in the form of dividends for a while to point that they are in danger of eating into the company's cash flow. They are still giving a dividend which means they still believe they have excess profit to share with stock holders. The second is that the whole sector's growth is slowing. We've seen this slowdown in board and card games which collectively saw their sales fall last year. The video game space has seen mass lay offs over the last year or so. GW'S biggest rival Asmodee who owns Mass atomic games of MCP fame just got spun off by the Embracer group and saddled with a bunch of debt. GW is comparatively in a very safe place. Their performance has been solid but their rate of growth has declined since COVID boom. Most of the people buying and selling GW shares probably wouldn't even know what a space marine is.

It's made GW a decent profit though. Compared to a lot of other streaming services, that's good. It will be interesting to see what the next financial report says.

Yeah, I've noticed this with Warhammer+. The most disappointing thing for me is the vault. They haven't added anything new for over 6 months. The episodes are getting shorter and the frequency of animated episodes is decreasing. I live in Japan and the value of the subscription is much better here. A single hero mini costs more than half the price of the subscription. That said if GW don't announce a major upheaval to the service this year, I won't bother resubscribing. I'm very curious to see what the next financial report says about it. I'd be very surprised if it's still growing.

I've gone back and forth on this but now I'm pretty sure you can't ignore the -1. You can't stop reading a sentence half way. If I say I ignore the rain when it's light, that doesn't mean I ignore the rain all the time. I think this will become clear when we see the declare and effect stages of shooting. We had the same thing for charges and the full rules quickly resolved the issue. I imagine the declare step will just be pick a viable target. At this point the warlock engineer can ignore the guarded hero restrictions. The effect step will be resolve shooting attacks that target the unit, which is how combat does it. The - 1 is applied here and warlock engineers can't ignore it.