wayniac

For it to be BIG news, it'd have to be 8th edition 40k release date, or maybe GHB2 release date but that doesn't seem like HUGE news, just good timing because of SCGT which is an AOS only (I think?) event. So GHB2 seems likely, maybe something like a revamped set of rules? Basically a new edition, not just GHB2? I mean, GHB2 isn't really "huge" news is it?

Yeah, I'm sure they are being reboxed to have round bases with the new white AOS branding. It would be nice if they got an extra 10 guys in the box, but I'm not hopeful over that. Question will be if the price goes up due to the reboxing.

I think in general the issue is there's no actual guideline from GW, and "just do what you want" is a cop out in a game that requires at minimum 2 people who may have different ideas. For example, I have zero problem with removing trees from a woods and placing models there, because IMHO that's why they are removable; the layout of the woods is what matters. Bases are another matter though. I prefer rounds, but I know enough people who have square that I'm not going to push the issue, since "bases don't matter in AOS" as I repeatedly get as an argument. The main thing I want to see from GHB 2 is easing up on Battleline restrictions, because right now i hate them with a passion because they are decidedly a "core tax" and hurt thematic armies a lot. I don't expect it to happen, though.

That sounds like a good idea. The usual argument I see is that historically archers were trained to shoot over their friendly units to hit enemy units, so you should be allowed to do that in-game. But this seems like a good, clean way to fix a lot of the issues and keep shooting strong, but tone down the nonsense of being engaged with Unit A and shooting across the board at Hero B.

In theory, but then you run into people not wanting do to anything other than Matched Play. So it's a double-edged sword. Don't want to rehash this argument again, but a fat lot of good "three ways to play" does if most people only want to use one of them. I'm more or less talking about "Points Only" being the typical way to play (maybe keep leader/behemoth/artillery restrictions), since that gives you IMHO all the benefits of Matched Play without arbitrary and seemingly random restrictions just because.

Honestly, I think they should have gone with the approach from Kings of War instead of this Battleline ******: You can take 1 artillery/behemoth for each regular unit you take. No muss, no fuss. Allows for themed armies without forcing taking X or Y unit to "meet Battleline requirements". Thus far (beyond shooting being so strong and summoning) is my main bugbear with AOS right now: I find Battleline to be restrictive to the point where I have to adjust themes because I'd have to take something else to fill battleline, or for example with my FEC having that grossly unfluffy IMHO "must take Courtier as general" rule.

WHFB had that old "one model is 10 men" stuff leftover from historical. AOS is not. The LOS rules are still IMHO the most lazy way possible and I 100% agree it ruins immersion because suddenly everyone is a sniper who can shoot a character past some trees, past a unit or two, to hit a guy. Sometimes tells me that did not often happen in actual battles. The problem is the rule is beyond lazy. It's essentially saying "We didn't want to bother to come up with actual rules for this, so there are none". It could have used abstract LOS like other games, it could have had forests block LOS through (not into) them like other games, or a myriad of other things. Instead it's the absolute most half-assed way of doing it, and it benefits just enough armies in the game that arguing to change it gets a lot of complaints from people who want to take advantage of it versus those who are being taken advantage of.

I hate True Line of Sight for exactly what the OP said. It makes most terrain (especially most of the GW pieces) absolutely useless because they don't block anything. You can shoot a character standing behind two forests and behind three units, with absolutely no penalty. Yes, I'm bitter about it. It makes for IMHO a very unfun game. The worst part is I don't have a good way to fix it, because my group wants to play as close to "pure" as possible, so as much as I'd like to house rule you can't see through forests as though they aren't there, it would be met with resistance. I think, honestly, true LOS is the laziest way to have ruled it, and infinitely wish it worked like in Warmahordes where you can do crazier things (shooting at angles) but with a lot less "Oh I see part of your model so I can shoot him" kind of nonsense. The bigger thing though, is that since most people I play with don't use terrain rules anyways (I actually see very few people who play with the terrain rules, let alone the actual special rules that certain terrain pieces have), the terrain ends up being just visual but not actually doing anything (except maybe make it so you have to move a model around it, instead of just past it). It's the opposite to the normal complaint I see about Warmahordes from GW players, in that the terrain rules matter a lot, but as a result have to be visually unappealing (e.g. flat 2D terrain)

This approach would solve so many of the "Does <insert rule here> mean I can break the rules?" type of nonsense. Also this is how virtually every other game operate, I don't get why it's such a problem with GW games where people think the opposite, and if the rules don't say they can't then they can.

So the argument of "not everything is meant for every type of play" which is what this really boils down to. I really hate that from a design standpoint because A) It's lazy and B) it further divides how things work. I think half of the problem is not people who want "free points" but people who are against any sort of free points because "it's not fair" (I'm sure you are intimately familiar with this type) and anything that isn't equal points is immediately bad.

Man I was thinking of doing an Ironjawz army because they are cool after I put some money into my Eldar for 40k, but with a possible Aelf release shortly...

Very interested about aelves, dark aelves in particular. They were my original army in 5th edition. If they get a cool gimmick and aesthetic I might jump on that, but it will suck beyond suck that they are still in Order (although hopefully a newer tome will mitigate it with specific traits/artifacts)

New basing kit maybe?

The worst part about it? AoS isn't even 2 years old yet, and already we are seeing some of these issues.

Also, whether or not they will be available for Matched Play doesn't mean they won't be around for Open/Narrative Play. I think we should differentiate if we are talking about "X battalion is no longer valid" (as in, removed from the game) or "X battalion no longer has points" (as in, not usable in Matched Play which is a similar, but completely different, thing, since there is more than just Matched Play to consider.

Do we even know if Warrior Brotherhood is no longer viable? Again, the rules for it was in Grand Alliance: Order, not Battletome: Stormcast Eternals (v1.0). Logically that would mean it is still valid for use.

Because oh noes some battalion you don't need can't be used in one of three styles of play. Must be GW squatting the entire faction! Seriously, seeing more of these leaks has me excited. Also apparently that in the fluff it's 50 years since the realmgate wars.

Not so sure that's a bad thing, they remain viable in Open/Narrative play, and don't seem so amazingly great that losing them would be such a huge deal for Matched.

Maybe. See, I think it would have been slightly OP but nice if the Vexilor and Azyros could automatically choose a banner/lantern from the list, similar to how the Relictor gets prayers or a mount gets traits. But since they count as artefacts that's not how it works.

As someone who likes Stormcast and absolutely despises the Patriots (only football team I 100% loathe), I take offense at this I do wonder how strict people are going to be about the Stormhost battalions and paint schemes. I wonder if it will turn out like 40k often does with "You can't use Ultramarines rules if you're models aren't blue" kind of thing...

I don't think this is right, because they were in the Grand Alliance: Order book (and given points in General's Handbook), so why would they have points reprinted in the Stormcast Eternals battletome? That's where this gets odd.

I think this is something GW will need to address, honestly. If a battalion was in GA: Order, and not in Battletome: Stormcast Eternals 1.0, is it still legal/valid if it has no superseding profile? For instance, the Knight-Vexillor has points in two places; it would make logical sense that the most current version replaces the prior one (and GW does this with codexes in 40k, say). But Warrior Brotherhood has not been replaced; it should still exist since it comes from GA: Order, which has not been invalidated.

Yeah but even so why would you ever not take it on a disc? Being on the disc is better in every way the fact that they cost the same points notwithstanding. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

I would hope that GHB 2.0 might have different points for Enlightened on/off the Disc, it would make some sense and also give a reason to take/not take certain options, since right now there's zero reason to ever not take a particular option since it's "free".

To each their own, but as someone who prefers mono faction, this is good news to me. Sorry to hear it's not for you