someone2040

No, they shouldn't. Actual Skirmish points the one with Goreaxe and Skullhammer at a higher renown than the other one. Agree completely. There are plenty of things that break in Skirmish. I see Salamanders and Razordons as perfectly good candidates as models that would look interesting and be a logical part of a warband. A quick glance at the rules, and I'm not even sure if they'd be broken. They only have 3 wounds, short range on their shooting attacks, razordons stand and shoot only kicks in on a 4+, salamanders do one high damage attack (but at 8" range). I could get 6 Freeguild Handgunners for the same cost of either, and I reckon I'd choose the Handgunners most of the time. If anything, Chameleon Skinks probably break the game far more easily just due to their movement shenaningans.

Unfortunately you're missing the compendium units from the Aelves. You cah check which ones I recommend on my spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuJFr9nZwz2K3CwU0u31AlMnuBL25B65IxUtkZJFNdE/edit?usp=sharing

So not really. Generally, the progression that occurs is your warband gets larger. After each battle, you roll on an end of game chart (Where the victor gets a bonus to this chart which we forgot :(). These generally range from abilities that help you during your next battle, to getting more renown which you can use to purchase units. There are some permanent things though, such as your General being able to learn new Command Abilities or your Wizard learning spells. But overall, the progression seems more like something that suits tournament play in that you get bonuses towards your next game, but nothing really permanent. For real progression or a more in depth system (death and experience). @bottle has indicated that this might be the kind've content that makes it into future Hinterlands versions.

Good catch, certainly looks like it. Wonder if it's a Daemon and will hence transition to Age of Sigmar as well.

After an adventure in Hinterlands Skirmish last week, I was pretty keen for some Age of Sigmar : Skirmish. Although, there are definitely some decisions I don't agree upon, I wanted to get into the book first hand and on the day. So this morning I rocked up at my Games Workshop basically first thing in the morning, to purchase my copy of Skirmish. I got the book, flipped past the fluff and got right down into the nitty gritties of the renown. The night before I had tossed up whether I wanted to bring my Freeguild with me, but in the end I decided to take my Slaves to Darkness. My store is going to start a campaign next week, starting off at 25 renown, but for today we could play what we want. So I built a quick and dirty 50 renown list, and ended up with the following: Chaos Lord - Inspiriational Fighter - Helm of Authority (Note, he's represented by the Chaos Chosen Champion in my games as my actual Lord's head fell off just before we started) 2 Chaos Knights (Leader with Ensorcelled Weapon, other guy with Glaive) 1 Marauder Horsemen with Javelin 3 Chaos Warriors with Hand Weapon and Shields 2 Marauders with Hand Weapons and Shield Since I can't take Chosen under these rules, I wanted 2 Chaos Knights for a bit of punch. Even though I usually run all mine with Glaives, I used the Ensorcelled Weapon on the champion as that's what the model has. Ended up playing 2 scenarios. The first one was Fragile Cargo against Stormcast Eternals. He had a list of Lord Celestant, 2 Retributors and 2 Prosecutors. My enemy would have the cargo, and after a change of mind, decided to put it on his faster Prosecutor as opposed to his slower Lord Celestant. Unfortunately I forgot to take pictures, but he flew his Prosecutors up one flank while his melee went through the centre. In the end, I slew both Prosecutors, but they got far enough that when his Prosecutor carrying the cargo died, it ended up within my territory. This would mean unless I wiped him out, the best I could achieve was a draw. Luckily for me, I managed to whittle through one of his Retributors while my Chaos Lord finally made a charge and slew his Lord Celestant. In a more serious game, my opponent would've ran away his final Retributor but instead decided to see how much damage he could cause, which in the end was none before being taken out. I quite enjoyed the scenario, and it makes sure that you want to keep a flexible warband. The second game I played against Seraphon. Her list included a Saurus Oldblood, 3 Saurus Warriors, 3 Saurus Guard and 2 Saurus Cavalry. We were playing the scenario Clash at Dawn, which involves random deployment. With a very minor amount of ranged shooting, and our deployments largely grouping up our members, it basically became a clash between our warbands with a few duking it out elsewhere on the board. My Chaos Lord had found himself close to enemy lines, so the first turn for me was largely getting him back to the warband. Back to safety, the warband converges on my Chaos Lord My opponent made some poor tactical choices, and charged her Cavalry in alone. Between my Lord and lucky rolling on my Chaos Knight, I finished off the two Knights easily which gave me a very strong footing in the game. The scenario objective was to essentially reduce the enemy warband to half models, where the game would end at the end of the battle round where this occurred as the warband would 'rout'. If both routed in the same turn, it was a draw, otherwise the player whose warband didn't rout got the victory. So being 2 kills up already for none in return was extraordinarily good. I also luckily won the role off for initiative, and mobbed her warband with my own. Given I had the momentum, I used both my Inspirational Fighter and my Helm of Authority to use Merciless Killer (The first re-rolls 1's to hit, the 2nd adds 1 to wound rolls). My Horseman picked off a Saurus Warrior, before my warband moved in for the kill. Thing's don't look pretty for the Seraphon And that was about all she wrote really. I killed the Saurus and Saurus Guard in this picture on my turn, and another Saurus Warrior which while taking a few wounds myself, routed her warband. In her turn, with so few models left, she couldn't manage to kill anything and the game ended. I honestly didn't find this scenario as interesting, as it basically ended up with our warbands grouping up and clashing, turning into a scrum which my Chaos were better suited to the task. The deployments rolls probably impacted this the most, as my opponent rolled 1's (A common theme) for a lot of her army, leading to a deployment which wasn't very spread out. Overall enjoyed the games. While I still dislike the choice not to point the finecast and metal models, it doesn't really impact the armies I have, but it definitely impacts what I would consider making for future warbands. While there are definitely places for 'Grand Alliance' style warbands, I think most people just want to run a warband of their faction. The restriction makes this extremely tough, but it seems to impact Destruction and Death the most. Those factions already have less models, but the fact that you can't run a Vampire or Ogor warband just doesn't make sense. I also think 25 renown is too low to start a campaign at. 30 would've been a better choice. Any 100 point hero in the game translates to 20 renown, which it's extremely tough to make an interesting warband with only 5 renown to spend on 2+ models. For example, if I wanted to stick to my Slaves to Darkness, I can take my Chaos Lord, a Warrior/Marauder Horsemen and a Marauder. That's my only choice unless I downgrade to the Darkoath Chieftain. Many suffer from this issue Other than that, the ruleset looks like it's pretty sweet for matched play. It doesn't have much in the way of progression other than your warband getting bigger, but in a matched play environment in some ways that's exactly what you want. You don't want to run a tournament and have someones warband crippled by death and injuries because they lost the first game. But I think the way the rules are structured, it's pretty perfect for a gaming afternoon amongst buddies, or a proper 1-day tournament which includes some variety of progression throughout.

Would probably just relate that to 8th edition. Everyone is getting an overhaul all at once, so if your army has been collecting dust for a while, get 'em out as everyones going to be on the same footing. I don't think it's really in GW's mindset to spread the love. They prefer to stick to an army for a while, before moving onto the next release. In a way, this makes sense as it allows the designers, sculptors, artists, everyone involved in the design process to focus on a single particular thing for a while. I'd probably expect 40k 8th to follow a similar pattern to AoS (or most other new edition releases for that matter). Core Rules + Starter Set. Accessories for the new game, followed by like 2 months of Primaris Space Marines and Deathguard.

Surprising to see just how few models there are in the game for some factions. Seeing the final list of models available just re-iterates my stance. I think it is a huge mistake not to point stuff in finecast/metal. There are some weird ommissions as well. No renown for the Orruk Warboss. Couldn't see a Devoted of Sigmar section even though Flagellants are plastic. I guess this is where the community will step in. Providing points for models not included, a better progression system, more scenarios, etc.

Likewise, had my first games today. We houseruled my leader a bit, by swapping the Ironfist option for a Pistol on the Mournfang Warscroll (as it'd be a shame that his major weapon is a big huge crossbow that he can't use). We had an Ogor-off, which I think as expected a bit, was a bit swingy. Once two blows go through, the Ogors go down, and the Grots just prove to be a bit of a distraction as they're just bodies. I won twice, and at the end of the games I had enough gold to buy 2 Grots and a new Ogor (If I had the model for the Ogor anyway). So don't feel that was too much. Definitely interesting playing Ogors, as you'll need to save up over multiple games to get the more interesting Ogor choices (Leadbelcher, Irongut, Man-eater, etc). Anyway, for those interested I did a narrative write up on my two games in my Painting Blog for the warband.

Hey guys, So I've been a little vocal about things I think GW are doing a bit poorly. I personally think how they've handled the compendium is one of them. The problem I have with the compendium, is that not all things came out equal when they bought out the Grand Alliance books. Some units, slot into new factions absolutely fine because that faction was largely unchanged when it was migrated (Wanderers, Free Peoples, Dispossessed, Slaves to Darkness, etc). Some units are fine anyway, Tomb Kings/Brettonia, because as a complete and coherent faction, they were not migrated. Even if those factions didn't have Deathrattle/Free Peoples keywords, they'd be fine. There are two big issues I have though, some compendium warscrolls have abilities that no longer work, at all. This is my biggest issue. You've got Grimgor Ironhide and Markus Wulfheart, who both have abilities that reference units that no longer exist in the game. That to me, in the digital are is just a travesty. It would probably take someone 10 minutes to pull out that warscroll on the app, update the wording, and re-upload it. The fact they are compendium shouldn't matter, in effect, these abilities are 'bugged' because they no longer work. Some people will say let Old World be Old World, but I don't really get that. These are warscrolls that can be used today, just as valid as a Hellcannon, or Settra, or Sayll the Faithless, or an Orruk Megaboss, or the Celestant Prime. Yet sadly, if someone really liked those models, they're using warscrolls that unless you make a gentleman's agreement with your opponent, cannot be used to their full extent all because GW refuse to update warscrolls (Note: The only time they've updated a warscroll is where they've dun goofed - Lord Celestant on Dracoth missing his shield - or where they've updated a battletome). The other thing I would've done, is either re-branded or re-keyworded as many of the compendium warscrolls as possible to put them into logical factions. Now, I get that what remained compendium, was largely based on what they didn't want to sell anymore, so it's a bit of wishful thinking and not altogether necessary. BUT, there are a lot of interesting characters, that could easily be transitioned into the mortal realms, to add some life into some of the migrated factions. Just as an example. Why didn't GW keep Korhil around? Lion Rangers aren't even a faction. They exist because GW wants to sell those models still, and in theory, will give them some love in the future. But at the moment, you can't run a Lion Rangers army, they have no heroes. So why didn't they just migrate Korhil, call him a Lion Sentinel or something, can even keep the same rules, just re-brand and re-keyword the scroll. This for the most part, effects the Aelven factions. That's because instead of making a more natural transition, the keyword they were given in the compendium was a 'get you by' keyword, and was not migrated when they made the Grand Alliance factions. Every warscroll should be able to fit into a cohesive faction. Whether that's a legacy faction (Brettonia, Tomb Kings, even Highborn) or a current faction in the game. I mention Highborn, because they actually have a good basis as a faction (Archers, Spearmen, Bolt Throwers and Silver Helms), but are missing the generic heroes that got migrated. I would probably for Highborn bring back the High Elf Prince warscrolls, High Elf Prince on Griffon, and also keep Tyrion/Teclis in there. So the one last thing I'll leave behind, is a remade Markus Wulfheart warscroll that I did for my imagined version of the Free Peoples. The fluff behind the 'new' Freeguild Huntsmarshal is that they all make a pilgrimage to the Realm of Ghur to craft beast-slaying Amber Bow's from the trees of that realm. They are hunters who survive in the wilderness around the Free Cities, preventing beasts lurking nearby from running amok. Just goes to show how easy it could've been to fit some existing special characters back into the game. freeguild-huntsmarshal.pdf

I don't mind the fact they're re-using the starter sprues for Stormcast. I presume the Prosecutors are the full set. At the end of the day, if you're just buying some models for Skirmish, you may not care that much about the fact you're not getting complete units. For everyone else, well, just skip the set and buy things individually, or buy a start collecting box which is almost as good and will get you a full set of Liberators. Honestly, I'm just interested in the rules. It's a GW filler week that they tend to do before they're about to release something big (aka nu-marines or deathguard for 8th 40k). I do think they could've made this a much more interesting release though. As it stands, it looks like a 1-weeker and something different will be out the week after, as there's not a whole lot of fanfare about the whole AoS Skirmish. So how about instead (or in addition to) the boxed sets above, you got something like: Scourge Privateers: Black Ark Fleetmaster, 10 Corsairs and a Scourgerunner Chariot (I do have 10 Corsairs lying around... and a blister of old metal ones... hmm....) Freeguild - Free Peoples Captain, 10 Freeguild Guard, 5 Pistoliers/Outriders Bonesplitterz: Savage Warboss, Savage Orc Boys, Savage Orc Boar Boyz Gitmob - Gitmob Shaman, 20 Gitmob Grots, 3 River Trolls (Yeah, went outside the faction a bit, which only goes to show that Troggoths are in an odd spot) Flesheater one I don't mind, but it obviously suffers a bit from not having plastic heroes. Deathmage - Necromancer, 10 Skeletons, 10 Dire Wolves Brayherd - Beastmen Shaman, 10 Ungors, 10 Bestigors or Shaman, 10 Gor, 10 Bestigor. Devotees of Slaanesh - Chaos Sorcerer Lord/Chaos Lord, 10/20 Marauders, 5 Hellstriders All the above chosen to only contain plastic kits. If you went into finecast kits also, it'd open up a large number of warbands that could be bundled up. think these are more interesting warbands than the re-hash of Stormcast and Khorne Bloodbound we get for every single release. Ideally, I would've liked to see them create a bunch of new heroes to lead warbands around. A Shadow Master for Swifthawk Agents, and you'd get people interested in making a Shadow Warrior warband (Mordheim anyone...). A Grot hero of any kind, and people want to pull out some Grots. Easy way to tie things into the Skirmish release, while giving some love to some factions that need a little bit of it. That being said, listing off some of that stuff definitely has my creative juices going. Hope to find out more information soon!

Hi all, So a little introduction to myself. I've been playing Warhammer since the late 90's. I've collected a variety of Fantasy armies over the years, Lizardmen, brief stint with Ogre Kingdoms, brief stint with Empire, Dogs of War, Beastmen, kind've Orcs and Goblins, High Elves and now in Age of Sigmar, Slaves to Darkness and Free Peoples. Up until Age of Sigmar though, I was predominantly just a casual player who played mostly with friends earlier on (High school), and later in my local Games Workshop, but did attend tournaments. I'm from a place of the world called South Australia. Australia is a large place, with most of our major cities along the east coast and then a few others scattered around. This unfortunately means, that most of the activity happens along the east coast. I remember the biggest tournament I've been to was a whopping 28 player shindig back in 2009! We certainly haven't seen a Fantasy tournament get that big since. Anyway, with the advent of Age of Sigmar, it was an interesting time in our little community. Doom and Darkness at the time was running most of the events, and building a bit of a community near the end of 8th. When Age of Sigmar landed, it was of course, like everywhere met with mixed reception. We lost some regular players, and for a while it looked like, it wasn't going to take off. I was a bit mixed, because I really enjoyed the fact that I could build little armies and enjoy the game. At the time, I had build High Elves up to 1200~ish points for a tournament, and was pretty satisfied with that. I like building to around that level, and then my interest starts to wane a bit and I need to do something else. I'd always liked the Chaos Undivided look, where you had an army of black armoured Chaos Warriors marching into battle. I'd had Be'Lakor and Crom the Conquerer for a while since I liked those models, and it was the perfect opportunity to build an army based around Be'Lakor. But I was a bit afraid, what happened if this thing didn't take off? Everything was a bit lost. However, in the end, I bit the bullet. I decided I wanted to make this army, and the local club was looking for people interested in running events and leagues towards the end of the year (To be started in the new year). So I took the bull by the horns, I wasn't sure if there'd be enough interest for a tournament, but I was interested in building my army up from almost nothing, so an Escalation League fit the bill perfectly. At the time, Clash Comp was getting a good rap, and it was an easy and lightweight way to build your army. So in the end, I put it out there, made some Blogposts on my old blog, to chronicle what happened., and luckily enough it turned out that other people were also interested in playing with their old miniatures or making new armies. Over the past year and a bit, we've gathered a strong core group of players, and I've even run our first Age of Sigmar tournament back in March which managed to gather 13 players + myself. We've got another tournament coming up in July, which I'm again running and hoping we can hit 20 players. So yeah, sometimes all it takes to get a community going is for someone to stick their hand up and run it. It's a lot of effort (Coming up with a loose narrative, battleplans and interesting rules each month was a bit of work), but in the end, if you want something to happen, you need to put the work in. With that, I'll leave you with a picture of my army from about a year back, it's gotten larger since of course, but I can't find any good pictures of my force at the moment Hopefully a more complete picture to follow in a blog post later on.

Thanks for the feedback! One of the battalions I have penciled down at the moment increases the range of orders. I'll see what I can do in terms of named characters. In terms of more effective orders, I think the command traits cover reliability and the ability to give more orders. I'm not sure I'd want to create a character who can give strictly better versions of existing orders, which makes it tough (As there is an order for most things you commonly want to do). Will have a bit of a think. I could definitely see some kind of named character, who's a bit outlandish with his tactics having a special order he can give.

Hi all, New blog here. In my second entry I'll probably talk more about myself, but here's the main thing. I love the Free Peoples. Always enjoy the idea of us regular joes, teaming up together to fight against the alien, the monster, the enemy within! I've collected Witch Hunters in Mordheim, and both Dogs of War and Empire in previous editions of Warhammer (Amongst many other armies!). But my thoughts at the moment belong with the Free Guilds. I've also always been a bit of a grouch about how slow GW is at doing some stuff, and supporting older armies. There are some armies (like Freeguild!) that basically have almost all the components to be a real army in the game, but they're held back by lack of battalions and heroes - basically, lack of a Battletome that brings all the goodies out. Maybe GW don't do it because there was initially some very negative perceptions of Beastclaw Raiders and Bonesplitterz, releases without new units. Even I didn't really enjoy it that much, but it did breath a lot of life into those armies. So what I've set out to do in my free time (and perhaps, even my not so free time), is set about creating some rules about what I would do for the Free Peoples within the Age of Sigmar. I certainly won't promise something as awesome and outstanding as Tyler Mengels custom Tomb Kings rules, but I do want to create what I kind've call a mini-tome. A battletome that lacks fluff, but has all the cool rules, allegiance abilities, command traits, magic items, and battalions. I'm no writer, so fluff isn't my forte, but I reckon I can give a shot at the rest of the stuff. Today, I'm putting out there my rules for Allegiance Abilities, and to a lesser extent Command Traits. My thoughts behind the Free Peoples, or more specifically the Freeguilds, are that they should be the Imperial Guard of the Age of Sigmar world. Humans, are nothing special individually. Not as tough as a Duardin, not as graceful as an Aelf, not as strong as a Stormcast Eternal. But what they lack individually, they make up by fighting united, in regiments of soldiers side by side. Strict training and regimental discipline means that the sum is greater than the whole! And that's where the Allegiance Ability comes in. My version of the Allegiance Ability for Free Peoples is called Orders. Any Freeguild General (whether on foot, horse, griffon or demigryph to come!) can give an order to a friendly unit nearby. This gives them limited perks that help them out just that little bit. If you need your Handgunners to be that little bit more effective this turn, order them to Bring it Down! Giving them re-rolls of 1 to hit. How about those Pistoliers need to get into the fight, order them to move At the Double! to help them run further. Your soldiers may be facing mighty beasts that cut swathes through their ranks, but the order for the men to Stand Fast! will help them keep their courage and stick around. Last but not least, sometimes men just need a reminder to Aim for the Weak Point! Ensuring their blows land true. Whatever you need your soldiers to do, there's an order to give them! As long as your soldiers understand of course... One thing that's possibly quite debatable about my allegiance ability, is the fact that you can potentially cause more harm than good. Under the pressure of battle, Generals can give bad orders, or maybe the unit misunderstands the Generals intention. Either way, sometimes a unit will be confused and won't be able to perform their action this turn. I really like this idea, and I borrowed it from Warmaster where you could Blunder your order. It's a really interesting dynamic, in that the further away you are there is a chance that things could go wrong. Luckily, we are talking about trainer soldiery, and they will be back into order within the turn. I do think it's something that could be debated though. Allegiance Abilities to date, only give benefits, never downsides. You don't want to feel that something that should be benefiting you for taking a Free Peoples army ends up being a downside. So we'll see what the feedback is, perhaps it will just revert to Order Lost, but I want to keep it around for now. In regards to Command Traits. Not super happy about 4 and 5 and 6 at the moment, as they're basically just too similar to Grand Alliance Order. I do like number 1 and 2, they're personally my favourites because they tie into the Allegiance Ability and allow you to eek out an edge. Anyway, let me know what you all think! Hope you enjoy, and hope that GW sees the Glory of the Free Peoples and brings out a battletome. But in the mean time, I'll feed my thoughts your way! FreePeoplesAllegiance.pdf

Well, certainly one of my reasons for doing so was to introduce more mechanics. I wanted to introduce jumping into the game, but AoS doesn't have a stat the clearly relates to a models ability to perform those kind've actions. I also wanted to keep it simple, say a roll of 4+, but some races are more naturally inclined to running/jumping/etc. So as an example, all AELVES/SKAVEN could have a naturally skill called "Nimble - Add 1 to jump rolls". As for other races. Yeah, I'm more inclined to think about Order as they're generally my favourite races. How far you go with your races, I think largely depends on how many mechanics (if any) you add into the game. Zombies could just be ****** humans (Wounds 1, Save 7+, Bravery 10, Move 4", Hit -2, Wound -2), but you'd probably add more interesting racial skills for them. If you introduced a stunned/knocked down mechanic into the game ala Mordheim, you'd probably also take a cue from Mordheim and make them un-stunnable. Or you could add something like "Drag them down - If there are more friendly models involved in the combat than enemy models, Zombies gain +2 to their hit rolls). Ghouls could be Wounds 1, Save 6+, Bravery 10, Move 6" +1 attack modifier, then have special racial abilities. Cannibals : Gain +1 to hit for the remainder of the battle after wounding an enemy model. May not be equipt weapons or armour, always uses 'Claws'. (Claws are just standard sword profile).

In terms of making your own heroes. One thing I was considering for my own 'skirmish' style game which was closer to Mordheim was some kind of profile combination. Your race would have base stats for Wounds, Save, Movement, Bravery. But would have modifier stats for attacks, hit, wound, rend and damage. Armour would either impose a special rule, stat modifiers or both. Weapons would generally have their own weapon profile agnostic of who is wielding them. So the following might make sense: Human (Chaos or Order variants) - Wounds: 1 Save 6+ Movement: 5" Bravery 5 No modifiers Stormcast - Wounds: 2 Save 5+ Movement 5" Bravery 6 +1 to hit with melee weapons, +1 to hit with ranged weapons, +1 attack with melee weapons Chaos Warrior - Wounds 2, Save 5+, Movement 5", Bravery 6, +1 to hit with melee weapons, +1 attack with melee weapons Orruk - Wounds: 2, Save 6+, Movement 5", Bravery 4, -1 to hit with ranged weapons, +1 rend with melee weapons Aelf - Wounds: 1, Save 6+, Movement: 6", Bravery 6, +1 to hit with melee weapons, +1 to hit with ranged weapons Duardin - Wounds 1, Save 5+, Movement 4", Bravery 6, +1 to hit with melee weapons Armour - +1 to your armour save characteristic Heavy Armour - +2 to your armour save Stormcast Paladin Armour - +2 armour save, -1 movement (Stormcast Only) Shield - Re-roll 1's to save Bow Hit Attack 1, 4+, Wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1 Unarmed Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 5+, Rend +1, Damage 1 Sword Attack 1, Hit 4+, Wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1 Axe Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 4+, Rend -1, Damage 1 Hammer Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 3+, Rend -, Damage 1 Dagger Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 5+, Rend -, Damage 1 So an Orruk profile with a Bow, Sword (Choppa) and Armour merged together would have the following warscroll: Wounds: 2, Armour Save: 5+, Bravery 4, Movement 5" Bow Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1 Sword Attack 1, Hit 4+, Wound 4+, Rend -1, Damage 1 Looks pretty much like an Orruk right? (Maybe a pretty boring and plain Orruk who doesn't have any special rules at this time). I like it because it gives you more stats to play around with. More stats means you can do more interesting things with skills. And at the end of the day, this always results in a warscroll that can be used in game. You can upgrade your weaponry (or change weaponry), as you just need to re-combine your character profile with your new equipment profiles. Also, the above stats are more for your regular mobs. You could create heroic profiles, but I actually think a more fun and interesting way is to allow heroes to get access to a certain number of upgrades. You could even go full DnD style, roll for a X upgrades, and pick Y of them.

Not really surprised if points per model come back into the fold. There's been a lot of complaints for some armies about "I can't fill in my last 40/60 points", and it can shoehorn you into taking certain heroes to make sure you get as close to 2000 as you possibly can. I also feel it doesn't add on a huge amount of complexity, and perhaps may even be better for the game. It will be interesting to see if it does come about, and if so, how far they take it. It could be as simple as current, you just divide your base cost by models to equal points (Although, then you get fractions sometimes). It could be more complicated, such as your base unit costs 100 points, but each additional model costs 12 points (Taking into account for units that get better as they get bigger). It also makes sense when you have to make some of your characters from the same box as a unit. Flesheater Courts for example, make a lot of their hero level characters by taking a model from the unit box and dolling it up a little. If you currently say create a Crypt Infernal Courtier, well now you're down one of your Flayers and needing to take an undersized unit/upgrade.

Not according to the model I got and the GW website https://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/knight-questor But it's probably not really on topic for rumours. Interested to see what the big announcement is. Big news could mean anything really, it could just be the announcement of GHB2, or the upgrades to the warhammer community (Like the forums, community FAQ, etc), or it could be something simple like Shadespire release date. I'm not sure about Core Rules changes. On the one hand, I can see how it not being printed in the Kharadron Overlords it makes sense in a way (Although, they could've just printed the old rules in there). On the other hand, I'm not sure there's that much you could change while still keeping it down to 4 pages and streamlined. Another thing I could see them announcing is the next narrative saga in the Age of Sigmar. Set a prelude for Nagash rising up and his legions of Death venturing further into the mortal realms. Slaanesh has been found in the realm of Shadows, and new wars between Chaos and Order erupt after things have settled a bit after the Realmgate Wars.

Many moons ago, in the world that was, GW did actually specify which bases models should go on. I think the last time they did this was during 6th edition. Here's a sheet which I think may have been provided in White Dwarf (and possibly the compendiums, not sure) which I have still to this day. For some reason, the Wood Elves don't make an appearance on this list. Possibly because Wood Elves were on the list to redo still. That being said, I don't see GW specifying base sizes. It's an aspect which they haven't liked to do for a while, as it gives them flexibility to change bases when they feel like it will make models look better. I mean, changing from squares to rounds was bad enough for some people, and I certainly can't see them forcing 32mms on all those Space Marine players in 40k when they decided to start switching them over. I also don't see GW wanting to get as into the competitive aspect of the game as back in 6th edition. That was the time when they were very focussed on making a tightly tuned game and stuff like specifying what bases things goes on made sense. In the spirit of openness and ease of getting into the game, I don't think we'll see GW mandate this stuff. I don't think they should either, I should have some flexibility in my base sizes, especially for heroes and the like. I just recently got a Knight-Questor who's on a 32mm base due to Warhammer Quest. No way am I going to base him differently to all the other Stormcast.

Hi Runebrush, Just tested it out on my work computer, Chrome Version 57.0.2987.133 (64-bit). I was using Chrome at home when I ran into the issue, but don't know what version at the moment. This can easily be reproduced by adding a keyword to a blank scroll, then removing it by hitting the white circle (Which I assume is the remove button since it removes it from the list).

Not much been activity here lately, but thought I'd add some feedback. I've love it if the layout could be done a bit better. Like only split a description/ability/etc over to a second column if it needs to. I've got this case where on a warscroll I created, it splits the description over to the 2nd column even though it doesn't need to and it just makes it look strange. In terms of bugs, my keywords weren't updating when I removed a keyword, only when I added them. In terms of feature request: It'd be cool if we had the ability to have 'colour' versions of our warscrolls, a bit closer to what GW currently does (With the colours backgrounds, and the border). Or even just the ability to embed our own images into the warscroll like how they looked in the Generals Handbook. Probably a decent bit of work, and I do enjoy the 'print-friendly' version we have at the moment, but I'd like to see the option for both

Some feedback (although haven't played yet) is that I would like to see the option to take unit champions to be a part of the warband somehow instead of requiring 3 models from the same scroll. The issue is that the 3 models is a blanket (but simple) rule that doesn't have an equal effect on all units. Ogors will find it hard to get even one command upgrade, while Grots can easily achieve it. That's probably not a huge deal, but occasionally there is interesting equipment that is otherwise unavailable to the regular guys in the unit, and for more expensive units you can't access it very easily. An example for me (Which I didn't really think too much at the time), was I sculpted a Ogor riding a Rhinox with a Hunters Bow. I figured before reading the rules, I'll just use him as a Mournfang Champion with the Pistol, fits well enough even if the range is a bit short. Of course, the current rules don't allow me to do that, and never will as I'd need to buy 2 more Mournfang. One solution of course, would just be to make my own custom warscroll or house rule it with my opponents to allow me to do so. Perhaps though, maybe you should be able to buy unit upgrades. These upgraded models could be called "Veteran's", that start at Level 1 or 2 on the experience chart. You can either get them as free upgrades for every 3 models of the same scroll, or you could pay a once off cost to manually upgrade your guys (5 or 10 points maybe). For cheaper units, you could just grab more guys, while for more expensive you could fork out a few points to buy a veteran instead.

Haven't read the thread, but here's my feedback on what I'd like to see. Some stuff I would like to see in terms of balance: Allegiance: When you choose your Allegiance for your list, you must take that allegiances abilities/magic items/etc and can only default to the Grand Alliance one if your faction has no Allegiance abilities. Maybe the above is just trying to address the fact that the Destruction one is a bit too good? Dunno. But another change I guess would be to make the Destruction one worse. Certainly at the moment no Destruction army uses their own allegiance ability, and unfortunately while the Destruction one is so good they won't. I suppose even if you forced them to take their faction allegiance ability, unless they relied on their allegiance for battleline or something else you may just find armies get cheap battleline from outside their own allegiance to force Grand Alliance. Pet peeve is the Chaos one. I think it needs to be revamped completely. All the other ones happen automatically and generally you're always going to benefit from (Even if the only Order armies you tend to see don't care about it). The Chaos one is just... ERGH, exactly as it's called, Unpredictable. And as a player, that's really frustrating. I went through an entire 4 game tournament with it, and didn't roll it once. At the same time, fix the magic item discrepencies. Battle brew OP. Warscroll Updates: Above all else, one thing I'd love to see is a range-wide warscroll updates at the same time as the Generals Handbook dropped. Some warscrolls just... don't well equate to the fantasy behind the models. Take Dragon Ogors for example, nothing Ogor about them. All the attacks from the 'Ogor' are 1 damage to small. They could even update Compendium warscrolls at the same time to integrate them better off into the new mortal realms sub-factions. GW really need to embrace the digital age better, it's frustrating to see war scrolls that could just be fixed or made more interesting to better fit the fantasy and GW doesn't do anything. But if they do it at the same time as they update the Generals Handbook, that's at least a step in the right direction. I don't think points decreases are the best approach for everything that's underpowered. The above for Dragon Ogors, you could make them good enough with a points decrease, but it would be a band aid fix IMO to the core problem that they don't match the fantasy of the models. Unit Size Increments: The increment in which you upgrade units should be separate to the minimum number of models you need in the unit. If you buy something with a minimum model count of 10, maybe you should be able to upgrade in 5's. I get the feeling this won't change, because GW want to see a box and you have a unit (or the next increment of a unit). But it's probably not really that fair that Grots need to upgrade in 20's, just because they're sold in 20's (Although strangely Skaven get to upgrade in 10's, consistency anyone). Consistency: Talking about consistency, it is ridiculous that stuff like the above exist. Or that Brettonians as a legacy army take numbers that match their box size, but Tomb Kings as a legacy army don't. I really don't get where they were going with the Brettonians. Given they no longer sell them, for consistencies sake, please make them in standard unit sizes. Also in terms of consistency. Please choose battlefield roles that make sense. Why are waywatchers battleline for Wanderers? It doesn't make sense, these were the elite rare archers of the Wood Elves, not your run of the mill Glade Guard. At the same time, Eternal Guard aren't. What gives? Same thing for the (now) Swifthawk Agents, Reavers as battleline while Spireguard are only if the allegiance is Agents? Make Spireguard battleline all the time. Armour Saves: Ideally, this belongs in the core rules. Either GW need to update every scroll to have a 6+ save (Unless they're basically nude), or they need to change the way armour save increases work for models without a save. When a core mechanic in the game to protect yourself (cover), you need to make sure everyone can use it. Witch Aelves should either get an armour save, or they change the rules of cover to allow them to get a 6+ if no save. Maybe for consitencies sake, Witch Aelves should just get an armour save (The Sisters of Slaughter which are effectively the same models do after all). Auxillaries: I'm sure this has been done to death in the topic, but yes, I do think you should be able to take a certain amount of your army without breaking your allegiance. They certainly shouldn't benefit from your allegiance, but I would like to see it happen. It's a tight line to walk though, because you run into the fact that now you can just plonk 'strong' stuff in your army without losing the benefits of your allegiance. This possible means you need to tighten up things like Sayl the Faithless (Maybe make it only able to effect Slaves to Darkness units). The Hurricanum is an odd one, as it can't really operate in it's own sub-faction and is made to be taken alongside other armies. Maybe it's alright, as it doesn't seem to be as ubiquitous as Sayl is in non-Tzeentch Chaos armies. IF each faction had it's own battleline, heroes, etc I would say maybe there should be an Allied Detachment that you could take. Could be made up of 1+ Battleline, 0+ heroes, 0+ other units, maximum % of your points. It doesn't work for Monsters of Chaos though. Tough thing to figure out, hopefully GW can find a nice way to do it. Some stuff I'd like to see in terms of content: Additional Ruleset: I think it was a good idea to include Path to Glory in there. I think the implementation of Path to Glory is terrible, but still good to see in there. I'd actually really like to see a balance ruleset around those game sizes, but considering Path to Glory already exists and GW is running with it, instead I'd like to see a Skirmish ruleset akin to Hinterlands. I wouldn't mind if it's even a bit more involved (Akin to Shadow Wars: Armageddon). With rules like being prone/stunned, basic rules for climbing and jumping (Could just be a flat dice roll you need to make). It does get a bit harder without an initiative/dexterity stat to make more interesting movement dynamics though (Why would an Aelf or Skaven need the same roll to climb/jump as an Ogor for example). Map Based Campaign: Map based campaigns being fleshed out with some more rules similar to Mighty Empires or the like. Additional Battleplans: I'd like to see new Matched Play battleplans (well, new battleplans in general really!). One way for them to keep selling this book is new content, or making sure that everyone wanting to tournament game needs the new thing. A good way to do that is to change up the Matched Play scenarios every year. This set of 6 scenarios will be the standard for the next 12 months. You could keep 3, ditch 3. Or just ditch the ones that aren't as enjoyable.

Just over 2 weeks to go now, so if there are any hidden South Australians running around the forums who don't know about this, nows the time to sign up and come down for a good day of Age of Sigmar.

Pity he just has the fairly shoddy Exalted Hero of Chaos warscroll just with an extra short ranged attack as the sculpt kinda grows on you in a classic kinda way.