amysrevenge

So what is the best ally complement to the 3 units you get in the faction? Troggoths maybe? Something with rend would be nice... Rock Lobbabs should be good too.

I am rebasing my Bonesplitterz (for aesthetic reasons), and I keep forgetting that Gitmob Grots aren't on the ally list. I built 3 Rock Lobbas out of arachnarok howdah bits and they are painted to match and so I keep thinking they belong in this list hahaha.

I think losing Mystic Shield as +1 to save hurts Ogors (bulls) more than a lot of other units. I've been on the good side twice now of a squad of Ogors with ironfists in cover with (old) Mystic Shield as they defend against a horde of wimps (dryads and moonclan grots). Both times they ended up bouncing far more mortal wounds back than they took in wounds themselves (save on 3+, bouncing mortals on 4+). Losing the additional save bonus (and with the possibility of the ability changing from "6 or more" to "unmodified 6") really hurts. As far as competitiveness goes, it's not pretty really in AoS1. I never did manage a win against an experienced tournament player playing a practiced list (I played a Changehost and it was... one-sided). I'm hoping that somehow the shakeup of the game will make them at least a little more competitive, but I'm not super optimistic about it.

I am over the moon that Maneaters are dropping to 200, so that you can get 6 as allies at 2000 Matched Play. It doesn't seem like much, but straying from the universal Ogor statline of 4+/3+ only as far as 3+/3+ makes such a difference.

The core rules don't have matched play battlefield roles in them

Regarding allies. I heard from a guy who heard from a guy (!) that anything in your Allies does not count toward Battlefield Roles, either minimums or maximums. In other words, they don't add to your miminum Battleline units, but they also don't count toward your maximum Leader, Behemoth, or Artillery limits. Take it for what you will - sounds unlikely enough that I really hesitated to post it, but it's from a friend who is normally very good at finding things out.

Right, I could see a re-skinning of Slaves to Darkness *as* Darkoath, that might be something they could do. That seems at least as likely as an interpretation of what's been happening.

Maybe I missed something - why do we think there's a whole Darkoath faction/battletome coming? Is there something beyond "well, there was that MalPo herald, and so far 2 of the 4 heralds have led the way for large factions so bring on Moonclan and Darkoath battletomes"?

Always been there.

Don't know. Sounds like Gutrot Spume? Thanquol? Whether they were still alive or recently dead tens of thousands of years ago when the world exploded is of little import. I'm just saying that there's a perfectly good in-world justification to do it in the future. It is no more impossible for a reborn Josef Bugman in the MOrtal Realms than it is impossible for there to be Dwarfs/Duardin in the Realms at all.

Given the vague/hand-wavy way that the souls? bodies? memories? of the denizens of the World That Was ended up inhabiting the Mortal Realms back in the Age of Myth, it's not that far of a stretch for some of the most... potent of those souls to return with some sense of who they are/were. An echo of the hero that was, in the new era. Even for it to happen later, even for it to now be through the normal cycle of birth/reproduction. So a Duardin could be born today in the Age of Sigmar who, when grown is, for all intents and purposes, Josef Bugman. Or for it to have happened before, and to happen again in the future. It's not literally the same Dwarf, but it is functionally the same Dwarf. Spiritually the same Dwarf.

I've got Marthrangul painted up as an Order (booooo) Carmine Dragon. It was ever so briefly 380 points during that tiny window where FW updated their points without letting the main rules team know, and I happened to have an event that day, so I used it before it went back up to 460 or 440 or whatever it initially was and quickly reverted back to LOL If anyone wants to try it for a Magma Dragon, it is one of the better Bones kits. I'm very happy with it.

Haha I won't, as I've moved to Grande Prairie for the foreseeable future. But the group is amazing.

Easy, and received without complaint (although there might be teasing if the unpaintedness lasted for a very long time). Most weekend tournaments have painting requirements, but club nights don't. Best bet is to join the FB group, as "pick up" games are often arranged there on the week-of rather than just waiting until Thursday when folks show up.

Ogre's Den is the place to be for AoS. Regular games on Thursday nights, 15-25 people usually. Tournaments almost monthly between Edmonton and Calgary, of various types (singles, doubles, starter box only, etc.) Best bet is to check out two Facebook groups: Alberta Age of Sigmar and Ultimate Gamers.

Thanks gang, we had a grrreat day.

Not sure what you mean by this. Is this something you are saying that they did, or it's something they should have done, or what? Are there any examples of allegiances with "worse battleline" that have "more elite options" that you can point to? And counter examples of allegiances with better battleline that have fewer elite options?

Actually @Nico that raises an interesting point. Can we use new iterations of the GHB to essentially "fix" mistakes in army balance without having to go all the way back to the Battletome? Can we utilize the GHB v2.0 to correct the problem between Kunnin' Rukk and Savage Arrowboys, without changing the actual warscrolls? Would just point adjustments do the trick, or is there an actual rules-based solution required? I would posit that if points will fix it, then GHB will do, but if points alone is not enough, the GHB can't do anything.

The problem is that "fluff-friendly" is not as intuitive as it seems on the surface. Consider an alliance between Sylvaneth and Fyreslayers. There might have been mention here or there of individual battles where they fought on the same side, maybe, in Black Library or Realmgate Wars books, but I don't remember any prominent ones. There certainly isn't any particular ideological similarity, beyond sharing a vague xenophobia, and a distaste for Chaos. It would be disingenuous to make the claim "there is a strong fluff-based justifaction for a joint Sylvaneth-Fyreslayer army". But other than the usual Allegiance ability and Battleline factors, there's no restraint on combining them in an Order army. Alternately, consider an alliance between Stormcast Eternals and whatever Death faction Mannfred belongs to. We've had quite prominent fluff stories of alliances between Stormcasts and various undead (see also that swordmaker's ghost in Chamon). And yet, you're looking at Open Play if you want to try to recreate what I would consider to be a very fluff-friendly mixed Stormcast/undead army. Basically, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a fluff-based justification for a mixed Sylvaneth-Fyreslayer army that couldn't also justify a mixed Stormcast/undead army. Or a mixed Bloodbound/Bonesplitterz army. Or many other combinations where you could imagine short-term coincidental goals.

Oh I agree, there's no mystery in how it works if you are a careful reader. It didn't even need the FAQ to work exactly the way it properly does. But a LOOOOOOT of players aren't careful readers (reference: how many times are we asked "can I have more than one standard/banner in my unit?" when it is very explicit in the rules what that answer is?). The 4-page rules describe just the 4 steps. Then they stop. That's what I mean, not that the process stops at step 4, but that the main rules literally stop with the 4th step, and you have to go on to every individual not-a-ward-save warsrcoll rule to determine what happens next on a case-by-case basis (what's next happens to be almost universally consistent, but it doesn't have to be, since the rule is repeated on each scroll and theoretically could change between them). So, including all of the steps, even optional ones like extra generated attacks and not-a-ward-save saves, in the 4-pages might be a good thing. It would allow a wider selection of players, beyond just the most careful readers, to understand what to do.

The "additional saves" part is not explicitly detailed in the main rules. It stops at step 4 in the 4-pager.

This is a good point. What has fallen out as the sort of "default" game sizes we've seen in the community? So far, I've seen many games reported at the following: 700 1000 1500 2000 Maybe people have been playing other sized games (especially maybe bigger ones), but these 4 sizes constitute the vast bulk of what I've seen on social media or in real life. So it would be good to maybe have those 4 sizes explicitly called out in a table.

Well if you think of it, instead of using the old-edition terminology of "fleeing", as the current "retreat", and consider that tactical withdrawal is a real tactic, it's less wrong maybe.

Another thing that would be nice would be more multiplayer battleplans. We have been playing WAY more multiplayer games than any of us would have predicted at the club.

A bit of flexibility for things like Gargants, Troggoths, and Chaos Monsters to be used without breaking allegiance purity would be nice. (If the new mechanism left the door open for things like Forgeworld beasties as well, that would be nice.)