Infeston

This sums up what I think. But I haven't played that many games. Especially because different units matter in this format. There is also another tactical layer, because you have to consider which units to pick for which part. I think it is alsopretty early to dismiss Meeting Engagements, since nobody can have tested all armies and combinations in such a short amount of time. There are so many different tactical elements, especially because ME's are so restricted (which units do i use? which endless spell do i take? when do i use what unit? Do i put many units in the spearhead or in the other parts?). There are so many combinations that I think no one can already say that Meeting Engagements aren't competitive. I have the feeling that the community tries to cling to what is already established instead of trying something that might spice things up. I would be sad if the competitive community or the Warhammer Community as a whole immediatly dismisses Meeting Engagements, because I think it has a lot of potential.

Is this a wish or an actual rumour? If something is written that big, I have the feeling something might have leaked.

I still have to say that I disagree with this statement. I think Meeting Engagements isn't less balanced than 2k games. Where has GW ever stated that points are balanced around 2k games? Because I haven't read this anywhere. I take it back if you can show me where they said this. Because I can name a few models which seem to be reasonably balanced at 1k points and unbalanced at 2k points. There are a lot units which become more "balanced" in 1k games. Often Models and units which are overcoasted or not valuable in "normal" 2k games. I still think it is a matter of perspective. I have the feeling that GW doesn't balance models or units based on the format (1k, 2k or 3k), but more based on the individual stats (wounds, damage, abilities) or the "role" of the model. There are many models, which have certain roles (cavalry,battleline, monster) which have a similar cost to other units from other armies with a similar role, but outperform the other units with the same role. This is why I don't think GW balances according to the size of the battle, but instead depending on the role and stats of the model. But this is just a subjective opinion. But I think it also a subjective opinion that GW balances the units based on 2k games. At least I have never seen an official statement about this. You also have armies in 2k points games which outperform every other army. In Meeting Engagements you have different armies which become viable again. I also have to say that "meta" and "balance" are tied to each other. If you change the balance, the meta also changes. And if you change the meta, the balance changes. If 1k meeting engagements battles would become the norm, there would be a new "balance" and a new "meta".

Maybe you are right. This is why I wanted to start a discussion about this. It would be great if "Meeting Engagements" become a regular format, which is played very often.

I have to disagree with the balance statement. Even though I haven't played many tournament matches etc. I would say that 2000 points battles also aren't that balanced. If they were, then most armies would be viable in some way. I would say "Meeting Engagements" have a different balance compared to big 2000 point battles. In this format different units become viable compared to 2000 points battles. I think the community is just used to playing 2000 points games and so most people say that this is more balanced. But when I look at the points of some models I would also question if they really are balanced around 2000 points games. In "Meeting Engagements" some units are even more balanced or valuable compared to their point value. I don't think you can just say that "Meeting Engagements" aren't balanced in such a short time since the format was introduced. But I agree with your second statement. Everyone should play the way they want. I just fear that the mentality and playstyle of the community currently drives new players away, even when there are other fun options, where new players could also participate.

I have to say that I sometimes don't understand how people define negativity in this thread. If someone is posting statements like "I hate GW and they suck!" or "GW is the reincarnation of evil and should be destroyed" or "You and your opinion suck!" these are definitely negative. But I think posts like this don't appear very often in this thread. The only posts I see in this thread, which might have a slight negative touch to it are posts like"Honestly I have expected a little bit more" or "Sorry, I feel a little disappointed...". I don't think posts like this are "negative". It is just people voicing their opinion about something they would have expected. But why shouldn't people voice their disappointment as long as it isn't in a destructive way? Some people might enjoy the news and other people might be disappointed by the news. I think people should be equally able to voice their opinion about this. But this is also just an opinion. When I see posts like these I often ask myself, where are these negative posts, which people are talking about. Because I don't see them. Sometimes 1 in 50 posts is negative in my opinion, but most of the posts are constructive or positive. But maybe I am a little bit blind for negativity. But in my eyes negative statements aren't posted very often in this thread.

Hi everyone, I wanted to ask a question. After the release of the GHB2019 there was a lot of talk about Meeting Engagements and what a cool new format this is for Age of Sigmar. Directly before and after the release there were a lot of posts and videos about Meeting Engagements. I for myself am not a fan of huge 2000-3000 points battles and most of the time I have not enough space to fight a battle on such a huge table with my gaming group. This is why I really like the Meeting Engagements format and that GW decided to push smaller points games more. But now, as some time has passed, I have the feeling that "Meeting Engagements" was just some initial hype. Some YouTube Channels have gone back to posting only about 2000 points games and also most of the posts in forums or on reddit have also gone back to 2000 point games. The last time something was posted in the "Meeting Engagements" - Thread on TGA was July 12. Normally if a format is relevant there are frequent posts about it. Maybe this is just a personal feeling based on my limited perception and maybe my opinion is totally subjective, but this is why I wanted to post about this. Was "Meeting Engagements" just an initial hype and people will push 2000 points battles more and more or is this just my subjective opinion? Me and my gaming group really like this format, because you don't need such a huge collection for Meeting Engagements and it helped me to pull some new people into the hobby, because the games were fast and there was not so much going on. I would find it sad if the rest of the community pushes this format aside and goes back to mainly 2000 points battles. Don't get me wrong. I also like to play 2000 point battles, but I find "Meeting Engagements" to be easier. I also had hopes that this might be new competitive format, which will be played often. But I have the feeling that the community was only interested initially and now starts to go back to 2000 point battles. I would be interested in more discussions and battle reports about Meeting Engagements online, because it is such an accessible format. I think initially Age of Sigmar was more accessible and I often have the feeling that the existing community often pushes formats, which are very hard to get into for new players. Maybe because many people were collecting miniatures since Warhammer Fantasy and because of that many engaged players already possess 2000 - 3000 points armies. But everytime I search for some inspiration for my local group etc. I find that 2000 points-games dominate most of AoS discussions. This could be a reason why a format like "Meeting Engagements" is pushed aside. But as I said before, this might just be totally subjective. This is why I wanted to ask you all about this. I wanted to discuss if my subjective feeling is indeed correct or if I am just imagining things and in the end "Meetings Engagement" will totally turn out to be a viable matched play format.

Same for me. This is the only thing I really want this year. The best thing would be a new battletome, new endless spells and maybe a new hero, a new unit or maybe and update for old miniatures (yhetees for example). But to be honest, my expectations are so low that I would be okay with just a new battletome (maybe unite all the Ogors again?) I already started collecting Gloomspite Gitz, because of the lack of support for Ogors in Age of Sigmar. I mean I really like the Troggoths, Squigs etc. but very deep in my heart I really wish for an update of Gutbusters or BCR. The greatest, but most unrealistic thing would be 2-3 new models for the Ogors, which add new options. But I don't want to start dreaming again. Realistic would be new Endless Spells and a battletome. A new hero unit would be great, but I think it is unrealistic.

Is the Corpsewrack Mausoleom in any way different to the Sigmarite Mausoleom or the old Garden of Morr? Or is this just again the newest iteration of the Garden of Morr?

Isn't this somewhat of a Death equivalent to the same destiny, which Volkmar faced in Warhammer Fantasy? You even mentioned the standard. 😉 https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Be'lakor

Same for me. The point updates aren't in the App even though the last update mentions that they should be there.

For me it is also Ghur. Obviously as a Destruction player. But I really like the lore. A realm where everything and everyone is constantly fighting for survival, even the land itself: Doesn't this sound wonderful? 😄 I don't know where I read this, but I recall that Ghur also has snowy/icy regions.

Oh. I didn't know that. 😄

I think it is still cool. Now I can propably squeeze in a better endless spell or maybe another command point or something different. I will see.

Also another Sylvaneth Preview: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/07/08/battletome-preview-sylvanethgw-homepage-post-1/ Also Slvaneth spell lore now includes a spell where you can rezz 1 slain Sylvaneth unit or D3 Tree-Revenants, Spite-Revenants or Dryads.

Dankhold Troggoth, Dankhold Trogboss and Rockgut Troggoths now cost less. Yay! I had hoped for bigger reductions, but I won't complain. 😄

Same here for me. I ordered them from a store close to me. They already sent me the paints which were available, but i am still waiting for the rest. I am especially waiting for plaguebearer flesh, black templar and the white one to paint my moonclan gobbos.

This. If you are a person which is only interested in a one-sided battle and want to stomp your opponent you automatically violate the Cardinal Rule 1#: "Always be polite and respectful". It especially mentions in the GHB2019: "And to be honest, there is one guideline in the code that is more important than the others, which is treating your opponent with respect". Annihilating and stomping your opponent in an one-sided battle has nothing to do with respect. There is a reason why GW put those cardinal rules in the GHB. And as many people have said, in a tournament setting most TOs should prevent things like this to happen.

This would be great. I would be happy with this. I really hope that maybe Gutbusters or Ogors get a battletome, endless spells and maybe a new model? I would also be happy about BCR endless spells. Endless spells which reflect the nature of the Everwinter. We have all kinds of endless spell types (Fire, nature, light, shadow etc.), but we don't have any ice or snow endless spells. So I can see them releasing snow/ice themed endless spells for BCR.

I also have to defend the "whiny" people. Because I think, looking at the "whiny comments", nobody really "cried" or has voiced his opinion in a toxic or too negative way. I can also understand why many people think the preview was lackluster and boring. I don't care that much, because i got my Gloomspite Gitz at the beginning of the year and this will keep me interested and motivated for a long time. So I wasn't expecting too much. But there was also a point, where I was sad that Destruction didn't get anything cool. So I know how some people might feel. Most of the "negativity" were just statements, like "The preview was lackluster" or "I am disappointed by the preview". There were only a few, which got too negative (I think it might as well have been just one comment). I find the reactions towards the "negative" reactions more extreme than the actual "negative" reactions. In this thread I see people calling people "whiny" or "spoiled" just for voicing their opinion. I don't think that saying " I was disappointed" is a toxic or whiny way to voice your own opinion. It is just how it is for them: They were disappointed by the preview. I can understand this. I may not share the same sentiment, because I didn't expect anything, but I can sympathise with my fellow wargamers without thinking they are spoiled. I also have to add that I am playing Warhammer since 6. Edition. I don't know if this counts, because someone said you have to have played 5 years in order to voice your opinion. I also have to add that "Warcry" just seems to me like another small side game, which will be forgotten very fast. I am not a fan of games like this. But I may be wrong. To me it often seems like GW is starting too many different side-projects, but never finishes them or completes them. This results in a lot different small games, which often start with a cool concept, but are abandoned very early and you won't hear from them again. But this is also just my opinion. I am not trying to be "whiny" or "toxic". This is just how I feel about some of those side-games for AoS.

At least we Destruction guys seem to be popular now. 😉 More power to us! But I guess we will get some new people in our ranks who will dedicate their hearts to Destruction. As soon as a new shiny army comes out, we will propably decrease in numbers again. I don't think Destruction players seem like the "play the popular faction"-players. 😄

Dankhold Troggoth Painting Tutorials are up: For anyone who is like me and needs a little help with the techniques and paints. 😄

Another question: What defines a Trogboss? If I want to build a Trogboss, could i theoretically use another head? So what I am getting at is the following: Does the weapon choice dictate which role a model has or does the face? So when I use a different face for the Trogboss, but the rest stays the same, could there be people who might complain that I haven't build a 100% Trogboss or will most people still count this as a Trogboss? I think this might be more of a general question about which features define the role of a model, because I have also build a Frostlord on Stonehorn without a beard (but he still has the frozen spear) and a Megaboss on Maw Krusha with a Gordrakk head (but still with the weapons of a Megaboss). I myself wouldn't think this could be a problem, but I just wanted to ask what other people think, because I have never been to a tournament or any other "official" or big event. So I don't know if something has to be build exactly the same way it is portrayed or if maybe some features (like heads) are interchangeable.

Really? Maybe I mistake one head for something else. But I see one in the top sprue and two in the bottom sprue. But maybe I am wrong. Just wanted to be sure.

I have another question. Does the Dankhold Troggoth have three head options? Looking at the sprues it seems to me like there are three head options. But I might be wrong. As we have seen only two options, I would be interested how the last option looks like, because I don't like the Trogboss head with the fish on the head (or whatever the thing on his head is). If there are three head options, does anyone maybe know if there exists pictures of all versions in the new battletome or somewhere else?