Jamopower

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/06/26/generals-handbook-2017-june26gw-homepage-post-3/ !!!!

Didn't they state somewhere (I guess in whtv) that the GHB2 will indeed be mostly about adjusting the points values. Still hoping for the allegiance abilities and relics for everyone though...

Interesting to see the prices of those Sylvaneth models. Going with the factor of 5, the tree-revenants seem to be lower in cost than in GHB and Kurnoth hunters are higher. Maybe they are based on the GHB2 prices...

Well the lion doesn't seem to be white, so I would guess Lion 'el Johnson.

I can see no reason why Nurgle (or Skaven) can't get the bonesplitterz treatment. The models are fairly new and there is quite good range of them, so they could easily just release a new book for them and many people would be happy (not all of them).

As there is whole May to still cover with releases, if 40k comes in June, it could be that AoS Nurgle will come first?

But having to count all sorts of additional grenades etc. to the units and having the units total up to values like 167 is tedious. I like it that the new 40k seems to have both systems.

I've been playing my daemons "fair", so even if they are on 25mm, I don't strike over the whole diameter. Same with 25 mm squares when playing with my lizardmen, which have scenic bases hand made from putty, that I'm not changing no matter what. Edit. But I'm also not a big tournament gamer. Not that we eould even have any tournaments for AoS In Finland either

There is still one Major reason why they won't go there. Many models still come packaged wirh square bases and until they get all of them phased out and reboxed, it's hard to see them pushing an universal rule, which would prevent people gaming with the models straight from the box. Also with units like the Stormcast raptor's, the Base size isn't universal even with the stuff that comes on rounds. Many torunaments will propably require rounds of fixed diameter, but that's a completely different thing.

Well the rules concerning terrain and los in AoS are almost the same as in 8th edition. So in that sense there shouldn't be fear.

Well it would be old old warhammer then, as true los has been in the game for around 10 years, since the arrival of 8th edition. It wasn't good mechanic in 8th edition (or 9th age) either, maybe even worse with the blocks. It also was one of the main reasons for me to practically stop playing Fantasy battle back then.

Again, a good analogy would be measuring from bases. It's not an official rule, but widely accepted as the standard way the game is played. As the issues are more or less the same with the true los as in measuring from the model, I find it surprising that many people don't see anything wrong with that. Though I can see, that the los to imaginary volumetric cylinder needs bit more abstract thinking than measuring to the bases and is clunkier as a game mechanic. However, I think I have seen in some GHB preceeding comps something along these lines?

One of the reasons I have gone with Perry/LotR models for humans, is the hands and heads. If you don't mix, it works fine. Here's an example of some models of my order army under work. The more realistic humans make the epic models, such as these tree kins, stand out more. Still, the plastic haradrim I bought were bit too small. Funnily enough, I have an old waywatcher for this army and he's head shorter than the perry models. Though the peg on the bases causes it a bit.

I don't have anything against shooting as such, but having bit more refined los system and maybe a possibility to somehow influence what models the opponent can shoot, by having some kind of restrictions on shooting while within 3" of enemy, could add bit more tactics in it. As even though you get double the turns to beat enemy in close combat, you also get hit yourself there, lose some turns getting there and need to be in close proximity of enemies to beat them, which makes shooting potentially very powerful in this system. My concerns on the los however is more about making the terrain more relevant and improving "realism", with added benefit of making the shooting bit less point and click. Still, I'm ok with the basic system, it's easy and fast and the details can easily be agreed between players.

I use the Haradrim as my Slaanesh cultists using the rules of Skaven

This is how it used to be in 40k back in the day and it worked fine, except that the units totally blocked los to same size models. I would compare that kind of los to measuring from bases instead of model, it's more or less the same thing as you use the space occupied by the model instead of the actual model for determining the distance or los. But as I also mentioned before, it would be better if the models had size charasteristics (so that e.g. swarms and grots would be size 1, normal humanoids size 2, ogres size 3 and Nagash size 10).

Yes, I agree on that. I guess it's my roleplaying background that I find to keep miniature games "just as games".

By "rooting the trees on spot" the forest would essentially be impassable terrain as you could not fit anything there. Or you xould just put few trees on a cloth an say it's a forest, resulting in to very bland looking table. Note to the picture below, about half of the trees are taken on side as there are models in the forests. I can see that there are two totally opposite mindsets here. So maybe it's not worth to argue. As a general thing about terrain. It's something that needs almost always bit of hoise ruling, no matter the game, as general rules are very hard to write for something that can be only limited by the imagination (and skills) of the hobbyists and as noted here, there might be varying views what it represents on the tabletop and how.

Well here's a (bit bad) photo example of what I meant. It would need different kind of terrain to be able to track the eact position of trees, and most likely the result wouln't be too much better esthetically (which is the main parmeter for terrain in my books). I'm planning on doing some forests that would combine bit of both though. And about fantastical forests, I would say that they would be even more hhick and impassable due undergrowth (which would of course magically give way for sylvaneth troops) than real forests, especially as wild unmaintained forests are really rare nowadays.

Well it all is a matter of terrain available. I don't like the citadel woods at all, they are very ugly, but on the other hand we have a lot of model trees at our club that look very good when applied with forest base. However tracking the exact positions of the single trees is next to impossible, so with little bit of abstraction, everything works fine. Forests and in some degree hills need to be abstract in miniature games. Real forests have all sorts of undergrowth that would block the line of sight, but at the same time modelling them would make gaming impossible. Also the forests are usually relatively easy to traverse as the leaves start in few meters. However the model trees usually have leaves starting from more bottom to look better. Again abstracting things help. With hills, the thing is more with the slopes and the sheer size. Realistically sloping hills with "real altitude" and top heavy models don't usually fit together, again needing a bit of simplification. Houses and ruins on the other hand are much more clear as they look on the battlefield more or less the same as in "reality" (even if the houses are bit small and the rubble inside of ruins has usually vanished). So there is not so much need of abstraction.

The los used to be simple and clear back around 6th ed fb / 4th ed 40k, then I guess they wanted to make the game more "cinematic" and applied true line of sight to everything. It's of course simple as a rule, but leads to annoying arguments, unintutive shooting through massed obstacles and other sorts of annoying things. I have been playing Rick Priestley's Gates of Antares and its abstracted los rules (that are mostly ported from old editions of 40k) are so much more pleasant on the table, that it always gets me annoyed when I play AoS. Luckily we don't usually have much shooting in our games. Also, los rules are very simple to house rule, so in that sense, it's not that bad.