[The Rumour Thread]

rumours getting stronger it seems for free people and duardin.. If both are so up.. then the mixed faction idea is something to consider? Free Cities and their inhabitants.

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

1 hour ago, daedalus81 said:

That would make it cumbersome to have to measure every model to see if they are on the cusp or not.

but you have to anyway to count attacking models

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

A thought on Pile-in

Maybe lock models in combat when they are in weapon range-only allow them to shuffle more into base-to base contact in a straight line. While others outside of weapon range can move around friendly models till them meet the weapon range criteria.

[The Rumour Thread]

56 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Looks like Devoted of Sigmar get a nod. Here's hoping they get a little something in response to it, would be nice to see Humies get a faction book.

They had a nod also in Realmgate Wars Godbeast (I think it was) besides a batallion scroll there was nothing, so not getting my hopes up yet

[The Rumour Thread]

22 minutes ago, W0nd3r said:

 

There is a dude behind the vulture model holding high a large scroll.. what could he be?

[The Rumour Thread]

2 minutes ago, Changer said:

The Gaunt Summoner on foot (from Silver Tower) has the Arcanite keyword, and was listed under Tzeentch Arcanites along with the Ogroid when GW gave them points for matched play.

In the app I see him under Everchosen & Tzeentch Arcanites (Gaunt Summoner and Chaos Familiars), and you are right about the keyword, it does have Arcanites along with the Everchosen keyword. So seems an option for both factions then.

[The Rumour Thread]

49 minutes ago, Changer said:

Don't forget that Tzeentch Arcanites also has the Gaunt Summoner(s) and the Orgoid Thaumaturge.  As with some of the GW releases in the past we could see both of these models from Silver Tower released as single clamp packs.

Gaunt Summoner is Everchosen faction though, I doubt he will be in Tzeentch faction, but maybe some of the Gaunt Summoners lesser Wizards might lead it.

[The Rumour Thread]

on the AoS FB page official announcement of a rebranded Island of Blood:

[My Rotbringers Horde]

On 6-12-2016 at 0:14 AM, GuitaRasmus said:

Thanks a lot! I just realised that one of my pics links don't work - but I can't seem to find an edit/modify button? 

Great stuff!

And you need 5 posts to be able to do that

[How Large Is Your Collection?]

If I use scrollbuilder to add everything I could use to the list I have 7180 AoS points of humans

I have more old models that I can't list and odd numbers of models that I can't show in the scrollbuilder.... got about 1k (8th ed points) of Lizardmen, 5th ed starter box (lizardmen vs bretonnia)

and a total of 2300 points of Stormcast (more incoming with the new battleforce, I hope for xmass)

plus from starterset Khorne bloodbound and the free slaughterpriest

and Silver Tower models that are not in SE or Humans (already counted those towards their total)

[Location Topic - Where are the AoS players in NL?]

Vincent Goede, uit Leeuwarden, kom eens per maand in de GW Groningen. Speel verder wel eens wat thuis.

Ik speel in AoS primair Stormcast, maar heb een hele verzameling Empire (nu Free People) en een beetje Seraphon en starterset Khorne die ik mogelijk nog wil uitbreiden

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

13 minutes ago, KHHaunts said:

have mentioned this one previously i think near the beginning of the thread but want some more feedback on it.

Loosen up the allegiance abilites.

I dont like the fact that they promoted mixing armies up for fun interesting combos (Chaos and fyreslayers is a proper fluff sensitive choice) and now have done a complete U turn with the points system.

I get that some competition players treat the game more seriously than other and see armies simply as a variety of tools to be used to achieved victory. (like picking a golf club before a swing) now personally the few competitions i do i still enjoy unusual army combinations but then im in it for the thrill the challenge brings and not just for the win. But the GHB rules were created for all players use not just competitions. Therefore i think promoting the idea of custom armies in their rulesets should be done by GW. If a competiton body wants to stick to "Pure bred" armies let them specify that themselves and everyones happy.

What im suggesting is not to eliminate the reward of allegiance however make it less pivotal. We already have synergy for that. Instead you should simply have to pick an alligeance with certain specifications (Such as:General must be of Allegiance choice, over half the army must be of the allegiance etc) then simply only the units that comply with the allegiance get the benefit gain and those that dont, dont. This will allow for players to mix their armies and use a combination of synergy and allegiance to powerup their armies allowing for endless possibilites instead of these finite lists

I guess you are talking about cross-alliance armies then (combining Order with Destruction etc). As we already have the Alliance abilities and several subfaction abilities. I see a subfaction more as a purebread army (like only stormcast or only Ironjawz), while combining several subfaction still grants you a boon for creating an interesting combination of forces within an alliance.

I think in that there are already a lot of options and with more battletomes coming out these will increase. Though from a narrative standpoint I could see some alliances work together (chaos paying ur-gold to get some fyreslayer aid... Orruks joining a fight with Stormcast to drive off a chaos war band etc)

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

42 minutes ago, PaintingTentacle said:

E. Make the Blot Toad something players can kill. This is not something that will be addressed in the GHB, but any change will be on it's warscroll and imo it's fine, due to the rule of 1 rippers are already kept in check more.

i don't know this is true. When bringing six rippers in anytime. They have 18 re-rolling failed hit, re-rolling failed wounds, hitting on 3 up and extra attacks for each hit.  This is just one attack line on them. The chances are you end up taking minimum 20 wounds from them and there was no tactical way to avoid it since they enter the board when they feel like it. 

At least if the toad is dropped and they choose not to enter first turn, you can kill it and eliminate the 3 attacks vs 1. 

Getting on the board anytime they feel like it is part of a batallion warscroll ability so that would cost extra for their army, and with a movement of D6 for the toad and the ability to trigger it needs to be within 2" of the unit that is being attacked I don't think it's that hard to avoid.

Still if this thing is broken (without the rule of one, so extra attacks can generate extra attacks it certainly is) it should be corrected with an update on it's warscroll and isn't an issue for the input for the GHB.

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

9 minutes ago, PaintingTentacle said:

Items I would love to see addressed in the second iteration. 

A. More generic battle lines so we can mix and match more things. A few more might be needed especially with the subfactions that aren't yet officially released yet. But they might see some love when they do eventually get their own Battletome.

B. More cross clan (within the faction) battalion warscrolls. This is not something that will be addressed in the GHB, but new Alliance books or Realm Gate wars books

C. Revisit situations where a multi-wound model can be slain on a roll of one (example running or charging through a wildwood, using a real gate, etc.) damage is fine, but slaying them seems unbalanced.

D. Look for a way to balance out deepstrike and reserves coming on the board.  This is especially true for the escalation scenario. A player with reserves has a huge advantage in this scenario  

E. Make the Blot Toad something players can kill.  This is not something that will be addressed in the GHB, but any change will be on it's warscroll and imo it's fine, due to the rule of 1 rippers are already kept in check more.

F. Add sub-objectives to the games so it is not just one thing to earn victory points.  This will require players to better manage the game since there are more ways to earn victory points  Great idea!

thanks  

 

 

[TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback]

I would like to give my 2 cents, I did made a comment on someone else his idea on the FB

1. To add diversity on the battleplans to aim also for the 3 different sizes, now they are only focused on 2000 points aka 6x4 table.. so add at least a 4x4 build up

2. base to base measurement -> yes, but what about flyers? They would be somewhat handicapped and ripperdactyls even have a rule to go to ground, so there needs to be something extra for those.

3. Line of Sight, fine, but units in close formation (base to base) should block line of sight. Body should be partially been seen, just an arm or hand should not be enough.