Aeryenn

Is this a good idea to collect all the aelven armies for AoS?😀

I have a question. I don't really like the heads and faces of witch elves and lifetakers. If I would swap those heads with those of sisters of slaughter and heartrenders would I have any problems when entering an official tournament? The rest of their body would remain as in instructions.

Personally I would really like to try narrative game but the only group in my area I heard of has broken since covid. When it comes to competetiveness it's not the most important thing to me. I started collecting Kharadrons when their rules sucked but I loved the models. However I knew that one day they will receive new rules and be at least playable. I'm not so sure with warbands (majority of them) to get rules good enough.

You know what I mean. I'm not really all that competitive as well but still want to buy and paint models that might actual see a play on the table. That's why I'd rather welcome a 10 men box with AoS 2k points tailored rules than a warband.

When you put it that way... But still those warcry/underworlds aren't 'real' units because they have little use in competetive play. I've never played with someone using those teams in a 2k match.

If DoK and Slaanesh start a new cycle of faction updates I'm again disappointed that they only receive one new model each. DoK could use a new battleline unit. If they were to receive more, GW would put it in this box. It decreases the chances of a decent updates for other in-need armies like Ironjawz and Fyreslayers.

What base is Soulmason? I lost it and need to replace.

Why do you say all WD warscrolls and battalions are only legal to the next GHB?

In GHB2020 I read that faction terrain must be set up more than 3" from any other terrain and more than 1" from any objectives. Does this overwrite the rules of setting up Awakened Wyldwoods at the start of the game from Sylvaneth's latest battletome?

In GHB2020 I read that faction terrain must be set up more than 3" from any other terrain and more than 1" from any objectives. Does this overwrite the rules of setting up Awakened Wyldwoods at the start of the game from Sylvaneth's latest battletome?

Yeah but didn't all AoS armies have battleforces already? Bonereapers, Ogors, Lumineth and SoB are the only (?) ones left. Hope they don't quit releasing battleforces. Maybe they will start a second wave with armies that received those great boxes in the past.

I wonder what battleforce boxes are coming this year. Both Ossiarchs and Lumineth received their own boxes. Giants are in October too close to December.

@Sleboda oh my. And I thought that me with my eight 2k points AoS armies am insane.

After the shitshtorm GW experienced after deleting TK and Bretonnia I'd say none. They will think think twice before risking another group of players to loudly proclaime their dissatisfaction. Even if GW has no plans for expanding f.e. Cities of Sigmar they will keep them and update the rules once in a while.

I'd probably stop playing AoS if they decided to remove allegiance abilities.

Watching western political behaviors of late I can't tell joke from reality.

Cheating who? GW? I can't recall any warnings on the box that people are not allowed to make any physical modifications to the miniatures they bought. If magnetizing is cheating, so is kitbashing or any kind of conversion including bases made from other products than those sold by GW. So far I didn't have to magnetise anything but never thought it was unfair to anyone. If at all, I'd rather think GW is cheating us forcing to buy several copies of the same product to have more options.

Definitions of '-ism' change over time. It's easy to be perceived as intolerant in such a divided world. My understanding of discrimination is different than of some other forum users which is clear after reading this thread.

Probably people you mention would like to get rid of you as well. Hatred is not the answer.

@Overread Some good points there. 👍 I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. If you've read my previous replies you already know my position on certain matters. Oh you know that's not true. Some malice people falsify history either by casting in a role of Caesar or any other historical character People of Color or they attack for example game developers who create a title set in medieval Eastern Europe that it lacks POC. They are either completely uneducated or they are frenzied fanatics of political correctness. I keep hearing this kind of falsification all the time. But leave this topic as it is.

They've announced their new diversification policy just recently. We have to wait with the judgment on how does it really affect our hobby. @zilberfrid Great post. I, however, am (guess what) of conservative beliefs and in my opinion our biological differences (of men and women) determine our interests in this respect (to some pint of course). I can't call raising up boys and girls differently social engineering if it is not forced. I have two kids, two boys actually. I didn't have to convince them to play with toy cars and transformers. They wanted them for themselves. If I had girl I wouldn't forbid her to play with the same toys of course if she really wanted two. I'm saying that we might want to attract gropups of people into the hobby that don't want to be attracted. And that's wrong. We have to be welcoming for anyone but can't be changing the natural groups of interest. And absolutely we shouldn't expect any company to soocial engineer thair employees group by parities.

This is the obvious answer. But people here are talking about social justice. I think that's not the right path because - read above. I'm a person with a physical disability for more than 10 years now. I know how it is to be a minority. Yet I never demand special rights for myself.

Why should we try? Why should social engeering be the right path? Isn't just natural that different people, different genders, different nations focus on different things? Why would artificial parities be better than natural distribution?

People aren't usually introduced into rpgs by buying a handbook. Most of the time their first contact with this genre happens when somebody else brings the book with him or invites you for a session. That way you are not aware of the handbook's content. Or perhaps women are less interested in warfare theme. Like a lot less. And it's ok. We don't have to be identical, right? You can't make somebody happy by force if he doesn't want to. You know, I'm not living under the rock. Neither my wife, nor her or my female friends showed the slightest interest in playing AoS. It happened that those girls praised the miniatures for the painting and asked questions about that part of hobby but never ever they wanted to play it. The attitude of my male friends was completely different. Many of them showed some interest in rules and the actual play. Things are a bit different when it comes to playing board games. It attracts far more females compared to AoS. By this I'm trying to say that maybe we should consider that we are sitting in a boys' hobby and be ok with that. Sure, be welcoming to any women that want to enter AoS but don't be surprised if they don't want to. I'm working in a female dominated industry which is jewelry. 91% of my company's clients are women. I have the actual data from e-shop. A large group of men buying jewelry buy it for their female relatives as well. There's no sense in fighting it by telling men they need to wear earings. We accept it and focus on our female customers.

Can you try to explain why men represent a vast majority of tabletop wargames?