Shane

It's really worth thinking about what you need from a game. The idea of a big narrative campaign is always great to me. In reality, it's hard enough getting games of AoS in. This could be something I play with my brother/non-wargaming friends over a beer.

Skip to 26:20 for the discussion on the core game engine.

In the GMG video above he says the Iron Golems come to 975 points. There is no mention if this grants you any bonus for having less points. Or if points matter outside of use everything you get in a warband box.

Not sure if you saw this one. Placement/movement seemed key for the objectives. And the card changing deployment mixes that up. There will always be an element of get in and hit hard - it's skirmish sized and shorter play time. Edit: For me it is the multiplayer element that helps keep these scale games exciting. Even when I was young three(+) of us would play Necromunda or Mordhelm at once.

Two questions: 1) The fight last ability at the end of the charge phase - this is any charge phase e.g. even if the enemy charges you? 2) The Epitome ability is at the beginning of the combat round (fight last) - does that mean it can also use the standard hero ability (fight last) at the end of the charge phase too?

Thanks.

The colossal squig... when he pops, is the squig herd "free" in matched play?

Popping back in after a long time off to ask... does the Loonboss on Mangler Squigs' command ability affect himself?

Atia:

Could be Dark Eldar. Or Duardin Robots Go Fishing Vol IV.

Custom general generator. Table for each four alliances to create your own general for narrative games. Sure, you can make it up. But having a shared baseline really helps buy-in. Put it in PtG or Narrative. Whichever makes it happen.

I'm in the same spot. The made to order ones come with the new oval bases. If you look at the AoS base packs they only do oval for cavalary. Same for 40k. I think these old rectangle biker bases are on their way out over time.

They did this in WD for Deathwatch when 'Cult got a full release. I'd expect the same here.

As a Slaanesh fan, we all can.

Hi all, to avoid bloating the Rumour Thread, please post here on this book:

"If it is keyword Tzeentch, it's in this book" Edit: 0-1

Tomorrow GW are playing AoS...including Arcanites.

I was considering signing up to support this GW initiative (at £5 a month). If it's £20 extra a year for Prime I may very well go that route.

From WoS, from somewhere else,

That's what I meant about creating new keywords/rules to get around existing ones. That is the cause of rule bloat (see 40k). It also leads to the opposing player being (unpleasently) surprised when you suddenly point out a unique keyword that invalidates their game expectation. Copying Arcane Bolt into Bolt of Change for Heralds as a hero phase ability could work, as an example. That way you're not playing around with keywords.

The following suggestions are based around the core idea of fun (i.e. what I don't find fun in AoS): Reconsider battleline and how it is implemented by default. Why is being forced to take units I don't want to fun? Why is it fun to lose out on a bonus for XX number of models due to trying to hit a predefined limit of units? Spells/abilities per faction. They'll come, but please hurry it up. Rule of one on spells is reactionary to an open play issue. Massively impacts some factions (Tzeentch) whilst others get around it with loopholes (keyword changes ((Stormcast)). If you're then writing rules to get around your own rules - i.e. Tzeentch suddenly cast changes rather than spells - it doesn't fix the problem (the original rule). And at least change to successful attempts. Avoid at all costs using different keywords to get around your own rules. 40k has rules stacked on rules just so one army seems a bit cooler at the expense of rule bloat and the other player being annoyed (i.e. it's not fun). Vary the missions. Hold the objective is over used. Keep it simple as they have done so far! Allow all chaos monsters to have marks of chaos to get around allegiance issues (like the Vortex Beast, for example). Rather than increase any point costs, instead look at the units no one uses and ask why. Are those too expensive? Do they need an ability/combo tweak? Don't immediately punish the good units. Improve the bad ones. On top of that, it'd be neat if GW conducted usability testing at events. That can give you real insight as to what the pain points actually are. Asking directly what to improve, from a product perspective, isn't always wise.

Well, they do have a finished Khorgorath model that never got released...

At Games Day they were taken aback by the demand and wished they'd already had one planned. So I expect something next year. Rebox some existing minis, throw in a few new ones, new tiles and mini-adventure book. Done.

It's set in the alternate old world. There will be six plastic teams - humans, orcs, skaven, dwarves. elves, and nurgle. And then the rest will follow as resin (Dark Elves, for example).

I expect GW will slowly separate what little crossover there is between AoS and 40k lines. Rubic marines and Tzeentchgors, for example, rather than more cross-game daemons. Also, the Primarch will be its own kit. It is a big deal and they'll want to market it as much. The smaller model will be a familiar or the 30k version.