amysrevenge

Two very different things, with very different ethical and legal considerations: 1) Loot crate for $80 with an amount of random stuff in it worth $160 (and maybe even the box is always the same so the first time someone buys one and posts online you know exactly what's in it). 2) Loot crate for $80 with an amount of random stuff in it that could vary from $40 to $4,000 based on increasingly unlikely odds. 1) is fine. 2) is very questionable.

I reckon this is the thing I'd like to see change the most in whatever AoS3 looks like. As a system, battleshock/bravery is almost entirely independent of the mechanics of the game - you could do almost anything with it and the rest could stay the same. And I agree with most of the commentary above, that as it is the system just doesn't work. You could eliminate the Battleshock Phase from the game entirely and it wouldn't substantively impact 70% of the games I've played. You can't say that for any of the other phases.

I mean... for all that ethereal and shields don't play nice, they otherwise did a pretty good job of it. Everything else you can do is a little bit too expensive (points-wise) and can't really break the game. A much preferred outcome to the opposite, where if things were too cheap or good we'd just shelve the whole system and never see it again. This way, it might actually get used and tweaked and improved! I'd love to see the in the next revision of this: the one page of hero upgrades expanded to 3 or 5 pages, and include the options for more keywords, etc.

If they hadn't been my active project at the time I would never have remembered hahahaha

On this point, it has happened before in the pre-pandemic/pre-delayed timeline days. There were points for Bonesplitters in a GHB before the first Bonesplitters battletome came out a month or so later (whichever year that was - 2017?).

Good chance to recreate Duardin King on Shieldbearers. I built one on paper to 20DP/200 points that does a good job of recreating the one I used in the early days of AoS. Have to get it in scroll form at some point...

The more I look at this, the more I'm seeing great fun value in the 12-20 DP range for support heroes. Especially of the +1 to hit bubble variety. Recreating the Battle Standard Bearer.

I think there will be dramatic regional variance for this. Even within the same country. One of my clubs is planning a 50 player event for the last weekend in August (in a playing area normally large enough to host 100 players). I'm not going. My other club is allowing drop-in/casual play on Thursdays, with masks and a signed waiver. I'm not going. There are many places in the world where either of those would not be allowed.

This was going to be my minus as well. It's a bit nitpicky, but the core of it is the design choice to preserve the wording of "to wound" from previous editions, when the actual mechanic is "to damage" because if your "to wound" roll is successful you don't do "wounds" you do "damage" (which then become wounds later on in the sequence). This unclear wording is the core of many players thinking they understand the attack sequence when in reality very few players really understand the attack sequence. Otherwise I'm a sea of pluses, as I love this game.

Shields in AoS don't universally do the same thing. Some shields add 1 to saves, some shields let you reroll 1s to save, some shields let you reroll saves, some shields give a 5+ to ignore mortal wounds, etc.

Strictly lore-wise, it's been brought up a couple times, but WFB and AoS are extreme opposites. In WFB, everything you do MATTERS, but you can't do anything interesting or new because the setting is locked down. In AoS, you can do ANYTHING, but nothing can you do really matters because the setting is so open and undefined. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses, and it's completely subjective which you prefer. Again as was referenced above, when I was a younger more passionate man, I preferred the MATTERS of WFB, but now as a more mellow oldtimer, I'm entranced by the ANYTHING of AoS. I genuinely think that 25 year old me would have liked WFB over AoS by the same margin that 45 year old me likes AoS over WFB.

Loving all of these creations. I've looked closely at every one, and enjoyed each.

I am happy to pay $1.35 CDN per month for the current AoS app, even in this time where I haven't played a game in over 4 months and I'm not likely to play another one for at least a few months. I would be less happy to pay $7.99 CDN (for models at least, price in $CDN is usually exactly double the price in £) per month for a game I'm not playing.

I am not aiming this at any specific person... If someone is pushed out of the hobby by the manufacturer's mandate to increase diversity, I will be glad to see them gone. They can't leave soon enough. I would rather they leave now, forever, than to stick around and moan about it.

I'm not excited about this year's GH, will only buy electronic to keep the battleplans up to date on my phone. Haven't been excited for one, really, since the first one. It might be good, it might be bad, it might be somewhere in the "dull zone" in between. Other than updated battleplans and points, I didn't get a whole lot of mileage out of the last couple. "It's not out yet but it sucks" is *classic* warhammer internet, going back to even before there was proper internet. Even if you surround it with caveats like "it's not out yet but the leaks have let us read a lot of it" or "it's not out yet but my friend who works at GW has told me all about it" or even "it's not out yet but I somehow have an advanced copy and have read it from page 1 to the end but the rest of you haven't". It's peak warhammer internet. Whether the specific criticisms are valid or invalid; on-target or off-target, in context or out of context. It's still an old classic.

It is worth noting who feels like they are being slighted or attacked by veeery vague sentiments like this.

Warhammer internet, in a nutshell.

Ladies in the army: Heck no. lol Any analysis of Warhammer races, even humans, that includes the word "historical" or "real world" might as well be white text on a white background - I'm just not interested.

Speaking from my pulpit as a straight white dude, I am in no way pushed aside by the occasional, and by occasional I mean up to and including going over 50%, diverse miniature. And I'm reasonably upset at the suggestion that I might be so fragile that I would be bothered by increased diversity. What should they do? Lots. More. So much more. Significant percentages of female models for any races that have sexual dimorphism. What should they avoid? Yet another army of buff dudes. Anything that smacks of stereotypes or exaggerated racial features of RL groups.

I think there might be an issue of unrealistic expectations for some people. I know that I have to be vigilant to avoid falling into this trap: 1) I want to bring an army that I enjoy for various reasons such as: I have it painted and want to show it off; there is a single neat synergy that is fun; other people aren't using it so it stands out; I enjoy the lore surrounding the characters and units. 2) I want to have a good chance to actually win, not just to play some games. These two goals are, mostly, incompatible. Unless the sub-reasons in 1) end up aligning by chance with the current trends of the game in the local area (here, for @Sleboda I will avoid using the m-word). Which happily occurred for me for a few months with Flesheater Courts - that was entirely a fluke, as I had a 1) army ready to go based on the previous terrible battletome, that was just an Arch-Regent away from what settled down to be the FEC netlist while it ruled the roost. If you are writing a list based on 1), you cannot reasonably expect 2). As a "chump", I always end up leaning toward 1), and have to force myself to accept that 2) just ain't gonna happen. (ETA: For me, the one time I tried to chase 2) deliberately it was a hot mess. I went for shooty Stormcast right at the start of the Sacrosanct Chamber, that we all thought was overpowered for the first 5 seconds that the battletome was out but quickly realized was not actually all that great.)

This is definitely possible. Do people expect that edition-level changes would fix battletome-level problems? I mean, AoS2 as an edition could be good indefinitely if all the battletomes were more like Gloomspite Gitz or Slaves to Darkness or Stormcast or Nighthaunt (or any of the low- to mid-tier armies) in power level. It seems like 90% or more of what dissatisfaction there is around the current game is based around battletome complaints.

I know that this has to be subjective, but at this point of AoS1 we were already prepared for, begging for, AoS2. I don't think we are there yet with AoS2. I could be wrong - I haven't been hanging around with gamers much lately other than here - but it seems like there is relative contentment with the current game.

This is a very old argument, with people passionately on both sides. Does massive long-term pre-hype help more with sales, or do surprise releases help more with sales? I think there is a lot of regional or cultural variance here. Some people are convinced (whether by observation or by being or talking with a FLGS owner who tracks things) that a healthy pre-release information dump helps with sales as people get excited and save up to buy on release day. Some people in the same circumstances (observation or FLGS info) are convinced that a healthy pre-release information dump hampers sales as people get most excited long before release day, and then forget about it and are already looking at the next thing when release day finally comes. Both of these can simultaneously be true in different stores, in different regions, in different countries. In aggregate, which dominates? I think that answer is beyond us, without access to proprietary sales data.

Wait, aren't we early? I thought @Sleboda's next rant against "meta" wasn't scheduled until July. Hahahaha

This is where I come down as well. I think the advantage of seeing a version of the book within a small circle of people for a month is likely to be close enough to the advantage of seeing the real book with the combined input of hundreds of keeners on the internet for a week. For people who are already in the top tier of players, I mean. Side note: making an argument like "I say X; prove me wrong" is pretty cheap. A good argument is "I say X, and here is my evidence. Counter my evidence if you dare."