RuneBrush

Trying to draw this back to the original question (does feel like it's gone off at a bit of a tangent). My own interpretation is that you are upgrading the model. It doesn't say that 1 in 5 may be given a horn or standard, instead it's an assigned "role". As an aside, I'd always suggest having "upgrades" on separate models as this future-proofs you against any warscroll changes. As an example the Leader of a unit of Blood Warriors (+1 attack) used to be able to be given a Gorecleaver. That got removed in the last version of the warscroll and the Leader and Special Weapon had to be separate miniatures.

Erm, let's not be ageist here! I know plenty of people in their older years who are completely happy doing stuff online and many in their mid-thirties who prefer something physical in their hand. The physical/digital debate is purely down to personal opinion 😉

I think some of the Underworlds miniatures were to let their sculptors experiment with ideas too. If one of those warbands were to be super popular, I could imagine those ideas being expanded on for a larger range within AoS - we're talking at least 3 years before we see anything be released though. We know GW on occasion sits on new miniatures for quite a while too. The Knight of Shrouds that came out for the Malign Portents campaign was actually sculpted after the the Nighthaunt range had been done, but he came out quite a few months before we even got a whisper of the 2nd edition box set. The Imperial Knight was rumoured to have sat in a warehouse for 18 months before it was released (the date on the sprue backed this up too).

Ouch, that's a tad harsh! I actually think that it's more there is a growing apathy towards certain discussions when they come up repeatedly. The lack of balance topic is one that comes along pretty much every time there's a new rules based release. I believe what happens is that people look at the rules before having played a game and panic because they think they think this new release will roll over their army. Quite often, a couple of months later the panic has completely died down because the new release wasn't as bad as everyone thought - however what has happened is you've got a scenario of "the boy who cried wolf". I think the apathy towards this is nothing to do with if you're a narrative or competitive gamer, nor is it specifically competitive gamers who panic.

+++ MOD HAT +++ @Grimblaze I've just tweaked the title of the thread as Warscroll builder is the tool that's available on the Warhammer Community site.

No, but yes. I'd more than happily buy a Coffee Table Book of AoS lore - so a beautifully bound hardback book that you could imagine on the shelves of a academic or mage. I'd be less interested in an annual paperback compilation like the GHb, however that format would work well for collecting together all of the game additions we've had over the years - so rules for siege warfare, skirmish, aerial combat etc.

I've not received mine yet but my brother got his on Monday. I honestly think it's depending upon your local sorting office. Generally I get mine the Monday/Tuesday prior to the day it goes on release.

*nudges back onto wishlist discussion*

I do think that balance means different things to different people. My own thinking has always been that it's that one army configuration shouldn't be able to win every game and there should be multiple ways to counter specific lists. I am however over the years shifting my thinking that all factions within a game don't need to be "balanced". My shift in thinking has come about when looking/playing some of GW's Specialist Games. The Specialist Games team are very upfront in saying that factions within their games have a very distinct tiering. If you look at Bloodbowl, Halflings (and Snotlings) are very much bottom of the barrel - however they can and do win for a coach who's prepared to put in some practice and really learn how an the team works. Necromunda is another interesting game to look at where Van Saar are considered one of the best gangs out there - however the game is designed to ensure that the underdog isn't completely outmatched with the scenario limiting what you'll face and providing hired guns and such like to assist. It's an interesting way of handling things that works well because the games in question don't have a high investment in time or money. I believe that one of the reasons AoS struggles is because there's a much, much higher investment in your army - and that includes time to learn your army*, time to paint, cost of purchase and personal attachment. This is actually compounded because we're more likely to see points get lowered for "underperforming" units - so if you play an army that struggles to get wins in, you're probably going to end up having to purchase more models, which increases your investment and maks you more frustrated when you still struggle to win a game. For something like a Bloodbowl/Necromunda/Warcry etc you're more likely to pick up a different faction to play if you're not enjoying it because you need a dozen or so models rather than 100+. * As a quick aside how many us spend a lot more time planning and painting our armies than we spend playing practise games? It's certainly something I'm guilty of.

Join lines down the middle of shoulder pads is what's always put me off doing a Stormcast army 😉

Reading some of the comments one thing I will pop in, is not to forget to play narrativly. So during your game do things that thematically work, your Khorne warrior will certainly want to take on that enemy leader even if the game mechanics mean that you're more likely to be smooshed into the ground! If your opponent is playing with the same thinking it makes some really enjoyable games and helps to create some fantastic stories that can be incorporated in the future. One of the best examples I've experienced of narrative playing was at Warhammer Achievements last year where Steve Foote would undertake a bravery roll each time he wanted one of his Skaven units to do something "daring". It didn't change the mechanics of the game in the slightest, but changed the outcome hugely and made you really feel you were playing against a real Skaven army.

I think there's a lot of reasons that contribute to what we have at the moment. I don't think narrative has been pushed to the side though, the narrative part of AoS is actually pretty strong but it's also a really tricky one to talk about on a digital medium. A huge part of the narrative side of things is writing your own stuff, be that on your own or with a group of friends. Unless you're running a narrative event, it's generally difficult for other people to get involved with that narrative - you may have written a load of background that hinges around Baron Von Drak being the ultimate evil ruler and some random person you don't know interjects that Lord Wibbly Wobbly his neighbour eats Gryph Hound legs making them even worse! Equally somebody who's written their own background may not want to get involved with somebody else's background (if that makes sense). I can see what you mean about it feeling like there is a bit of an elitist attitude. I believe this stems quite heavily from people having very different approaches to the hobby. There's quite a few people who's sole focus is matched play gaming and they consider anything outside that small slice of the hobby a waste of time. It's a bit like some of the PE teachers I had at secondary school were so focused on sports, they didn't see the point of some of the other lessons. Things like army lists and tactics are ideal for discussion on a digital medium too, so you end up with a bit of an imbalance where matched player's are over represented and narrative under. Certainly on TGA we wouldn't accept open hostility between different approaches to the hobby.

Without getting into too deep a discussion (this is a wishlist thread after all and we're all allowed different wishes). My point is that I think adding more granularity into AoS for competitive games cannot be a bad thing. I don't think what 40k has would work for us, but I equally think what we currently have could be better. This may be as simple as modifying point cost by single points (rather than multiples of ten) or allowing individual models to be added to a unit rather than a multiple of the base unit size. I see the points/power level divide within 40k as being synonymous with competitive/casual play - which is ultimately down to your own personal opinion and will vary depending upon where you play. Quite a few people I know use both systems depending on where and who they're playing - but I have friends who also stick to one of them.

Most of my thinking has largely been covered in the comments above (including version 3 being no earlier than 2022). Separate competitive and casual play a bit more. I don't mean matched/narrative/open, I mean specifically competitive (including tournaments) and the rest. My own (and unpopular) opinion is I'd like to see two points systems, one being a granular system for competitive games and then a quicker easier one for casual games (basically what we have now). I feel this could help to provide balance where one load out is considered the "best" for a unit and fix units that are a little out by just increasing it by a couple of points rather than a multiple of ten. Curtail the number of rules and abilities that prevent "normal" interaction by one player. The basic point of any game is that the players enjoy themselves, preventing the interaction of one player will likely reduce their enjoyment. By interaction I mean "no you can't unbind that" or "no you can't make a save roll against that" - basically "there's nothing you can do to stop me". At an event this is often viewed as "I'll go get a drink then you can tell me what models to remove" Have a merciless exercise of "murdering your darlings". This is something that's been talked about in articles in White Dwarf by Jervis Johnson and the other game devs in the past and plays into the saying that "perfection isn't when there's nothing left to add, it's when there's nothing left to remove". I believe that over the years there has been too much complexity added into the game, most games I play start off with a discussion if we want to use terrain rules, most players forget triumphs and trying to remember all your rules requires the use of multipage crib-sheets (and online tools to compile them all together). The beauty of AoS has always been that it's easy to learn without needing the old "basic rules and advanced rules" concept.

One day I'll put together all the Diaz daemonettes I've got hiding in a box under the spare bed... I think they do, but they're more likely to be aristocrats rather than fighters so unlikely to be seen in the front line (thus unlikely to get a model). They're also more likely to attract the attention of the Witch Hunters because being overweight isn't going to be particularly common even in Azyr where life is comparatively safe. I can see one of Slaanesh's ultimate gifts being the ability to eat to the point of passing out, but never gain weight - I reckon that would be one of the easiest ways to fall to that dark god actually. Especially during a festival season!

You get to chose if you want a physical CD or the mp3 download when you buy it. Many of the audio books can be got on Audible too, which brings the price down by a significant amount - the Gotrek ones were in the region of £30 (though it was across 4 CDs).

+++ MOD HAT +++ That's enough of that... @NkfPanda please check what you type before posting, calling other members inept or implying they may be mad isn't acceptable. or what we expect from members.

Would agree with @KingBrodd here and say none. Any armies/units with rules/warscrolls can always be played in an Open or Narrative play environment without any problems too. Matched Play tends to need armies/units to have a presence in the Pitched Battle Profiles part of the current Generals Handbook.

I can completely understand why some of you are angry that the points haven't been updated and Azyr feels a bit like a forgotten child. However can we please not pretend we actually know how GW's internal processes work, nor that points are "an easy change". The only people who know how easy it is, is the actual app developers themselves. If you work as a programmer of some kind then you may know how you might personally code it, but that doesn't prove that's the way it's been done. Sorry if I come across as harsh, but it's a massive bug bear in my work when people tell me "that'll be a quick job" when they don't have a flipping clue - another bug bear is when I get criticised for having not done something when it's actually down to somebody not providing me the information/resources I need... As a few of you have correctly said, if you don't think Azyr is worth it, don't pay the monthly subscription if you've not already cancelled it.

GW still hasn't returned to full working capacity yet. March was when the whole company were put on furlough and although parts of the company are back, their in-house mobile app team will have been focused on finishing and sorting out the new 40k app (I know that my own workload would be massively behind if I lost quarter of the year's worth of coding). The free web app tools available on the community site are actually maintained by members of the community so there isn't really a comparison. Don't get me wrong, I do think that it would be good to get the points updated and am sure that we will see it done - but a little bit of support in the current trying times would be good until they get a chance to sort things out.

Speaking to the AoS design team, at one of the Open Days last year I got the distinct impression that Wrath of the Everchosen was them seeing if the format is popular or not and that we'd likely be seeing more books along this lines as time goes on. I think the question I have, is what the life expectancy for this style of book is going to be. Seeing a number of battalions that appeared over the last year have their points pulled in the latest generals handbook would certainly make me more cautious at committing to a series of 6 or 7 books that could have a portion of content invalidated*. I do feel a little lack of love for things that have been produced in the past or outside of battletomes - forbidden power, white dwarf etc. * please don't mistake this as me for saying matched play is the only way to play - I (and I'm not on my own) use pitched battle profiles for nearly all of the games I play and would be worried that that running something that's no longer supported could give me or my opponent a raw deal.

40k is deliberately a different beast when it comes to 40k and the designers wanted to really push that weapons should be good for some things but poor for others, forcing the general to make sure they've got the right tools for the right job. Lascannon being a good example as it fires a single bolt of energy designed to blow holes in tanks and fortifications - it's a tank sniper rifle basically, so to see it mowing down hordes of infantry would be weird. Conversely (and bringing it back onto AoS) our weapon profiles generally have a lower damage value but carry over to reflect that something may literally be hewing through a unit with each swing. You do have to use your imagination a little bit at times, but it makes an AoS game more straightforward. Having the two different games also gives us a choice on what we want to play rather than one ruleset with a fantasy or sci-fi flavour.

GW aren't back running on a normal keel yet, quite a few members of staff are still doing work from home I believe so not surprised it's not out quite yet. Within the UK, the event/tournament scene is still closed too, so there's likely to be less feedback going in than normal that could also have an effect.

@Sartxac I think @RedMax has covered it pretty well. What I'd say is don't go overboard with building a killer character if you want to give your opponent a fun game. Most units tend to be capped at damage 3 because it's still pretty powerful but isn't over the top.

They're in the latest Generals Handbook, so your best bet is to grab a copy of that