Enoby

I don't play against Fyreslayers very often, but isn't it the case that their strike first ability was locked behind a particular subfaction? On a quick glance, that doesn't seem to be the case here and will hopefully open up lists, rather than every army being from one lodge.

As mentioned, at the moment god models would be impossible to field under the "no unit worth half your points" rule. One of the other things is that the smaller the game, the quicker it can swing. Not always the case, but imagine a 200pt game - it would be tiny, and potentially won in a single turn (or whenever the two units clashed, probably the first striker winning). To an extent, the smaller the game the more chance it has to be decided in the first turns as the wound count is smaller (damage is also smaller, though not 1:1 amounts of smaller as most people will cut chaff from smaller lists rather their damaging units). This isn't to say it's always a bad thing, just something to keep in mind. Finally, some combos don't work at lower points, usually because the combo piece (e.g. Morathi) doesn't have enough to buff. Sometimes these changes won't matter, but they're worth considering.

The Slaanesh Christmas battle box, if you can find it, is probably the best bargain you can find - everything in there (besides Slaangors) can be used to good effect That, a start collecting (for summoning - half of Shadow and Pain could also work if you can split the box) and Sigvald would easily make a 1000+point army. Other things to look at in the future would be: - A Lord of Pain - Additional Twinsouls up to 10 (you want a unit of 10) - Glutos (very strong all rounder) - Keeper of Secrets (this is usually just for summoning though so don't feel as if it needs to be an instant buy)

She looks great! Also, off the topic of the game but still interesting, Josh Raynolds was talking about what BL books have sold well this year and he actually said Darkly Dreaming was his best selling audio book this time around. Doesn't mean all too much, but maybe it might persuade more Slaanesh work in the future...

Personally I'd prefer it if it went the other way, and any "3+ with a shield" monsters became "4+1s" instead. I do agree that GW is going the other way, but at the same time, I think a 3+ save makes some very deadly monsters too tanky. Partially this is also because there is very little that would ever be worth missing out on a 3+ save (but a 4+1 is less good so it's more of a choice), but it's mostly because a 2+ ignoring 1 rend Mawkrusha is just too much hassle for any casual list to deal with. I'm one of the people who'd like AoS to become more toned down in damage, but I don't think the best way to do that is give 3+ saves on the most deadly of units. If Chaos Warriors had a 3+ save, they'd be totally fine as they do like 2 damage average a turn, so they can be a tank without being good at everything. This is very off topic now, but it has made me think about monster saves.

4+1 is considerably different to a base 3, and considerably worse. The biggest difference is that your best possible save is a roll of a 3+ on a 4+1, but it's a 2+ on a base 3. Nearly every 4+ save monster can get a 4+1 save from either finest hour (if a hero), all out defence, mystic shield, or any of the other ways a faction may provide a save bonus. A Freeguild General on Griffon just gets that easy +1 for free, so the advantage is small.

The last time I tried TTS for AoS, when I tried to move a unit of 40 marauders, the unit exploded. It felt like I was fighting a war on two fronts - one with the opponent and one with the physics engine. That just wasn't enjoyable for me. I'm happy it works for some people, but I don't think I'll ever try it again. Though I appreciate I'm lucky to have a decent number of friends who play AoS so I can play in person easily.

Yeah, that's what I meant by "That said, I do remember last year (maybe around this time last year with Broken Realms) the discussion was in the other direction; in fact I think I remember saying "maybe AoS is growing faster than 40k and that's why it's getting so many more releases". It could well be an issue of warped perspective when it comes to releases" We do likely have a bias for AoS here, considering the forum we're on, so lack of 40k is hardly on the radar. I'd happily admit to likely being wrong about the release state of 40k! My main point was more looking at AoS in its own bubble, compared to previous AoS, it seems like there's less online effort and less hype. If this turns around, I would be overjoyed to be incorrect - but at the moment it seems like hype is low and that the discussions on battletomes are more poor compared to early AoS 2.

Yeah, this is sort of where my worry lies as well. I don't think they're going to scrap AoS or something like that, but I do think it's ended up proving itself significantly less popular than 40k. That's not a surprise at all considering how much history 40k has behind it, but I worry it'll end up with big releases always leaning 40k and AoS getting less support over time. That said, I do remember last year (maybe around this time last year with Broken Realms) the discussion was in the other direction; in fact I think I remember saying "maybe AoS is growing faster than 40k and that's why it's getting so many more releases". It could well be an issue of warped perspective when it comes to releases. Whether either or neither of these are true, I do think that the quality of AoS website content has decreased. Not necessarily in a linear way, but a while ago (maybe mid AoS 2) it felt as if every battletome had a proper hype week at least about it, going over loads of rules and design thoughts in detail. While we have had some rules articles for the newer battletomes, Slaanesh 2, Nurgle, Fyreslayers and I think Soulblight to an extent had very sparse 'hype weeks'. I distinctly remember how poor the Slaanesh 2 'hype week' was, with a single rules preview (after the battletome was leaked) and a couple of 'look at these pictures and models' articles. Compared to Slaanesh 1's 'hype week', they redecorated the website, had a in depth talk about what Slaanesh means to the designers (with a neat little spider diagram talking about each part), a neat video with the fiends, a look over at the new allegiance abilities, and a look at the new warscrolls. This is despite the second release being bigger and more people seemed hyped about it. I'm not sure the reason for the change; maybe the social team just prefers 40k, maybe the orders come from data and 40k articles just get more clicks, maybe someone left their position and they're struggling to find an AoS writer. It could be any number of reasons, but I have noticed it. The end isn't nigh for AoS, but I do think things have changed slightly. Back in my day, in the Age of Myth known as AoS 1, getting a battletome was a big and exciting event. This was mostly because loads of armies had no allegiance abilities at all, and so getting something was a huge change to their playstyle and thus really exciting. Now, getting a battletome can be a worrying time, compounded by strange rules previews that read as if they have something to hide. We can't really go back to the time of AoS 1 without removing all allegiance abilities from the game and starting from scratch, but I think AoS needs to go a bit further with the battletomes. Quite a few of them feel as if they don't make changes meaningful enough to warrant a new book. I mention this because, compounded with the release drought, there seems to be a general lack of hype around AoS at the moment. New models are sparse and battletomes don't always drum up excitement (besides of the anxious kind). I'm hoping things improve in the future - it's still a really fun game, but the breaks have really been hit.

While, like you, I do understand the focus on 40k when it comes to releases, it's very disappointing that AoS hardly holds a candle to the number of 40k articles. Of course, you could argue that more releases should mean more writing, but that doesn't really excuse the minimal number of articles on Nurgle, Fyreslayers, and Deepkin - it makes it seem like they're unimportant. I will admit I am personally biased against 40k, but even if 40k wasn't getting anything, it feels like AoS 3 has been shoved on the backburner in all regards

I really hope they release a P2G book soon with better missions, more territory, outposts (still not sure what they do), and hero customisation. It's a really great format, but it could use more love.

Thanks for the info It's a very odd choice - sometimes the rules department feels really disjointed. In fact, it reminds me of when the Darkoath Savages didn't get the ability to take a mark (lack of cultist keyword), and when asked why, a rules writer said the reason was the same as why the Warqueen couldn't take a mark. The Warqueen was given the ability to take a mark a few weeks prior. I think the rules team likely have a lot on their plate (and perhaps too few of them) so they end up with disjointed feeling rules that don't make that much sense.

I'm not actually sure if Valkia is a daemon prince in AoS - I thought she was, but her rules would suggest otherwise. I think she may come under the "immortal mortal brand of Chaos champions", where the god resurrects them and they don't age, but they're not a daemon.

I've been playing a lot more Slaves to Darkness in narrative play, and I can say that (fittingly) S2D is a really good army for Path to Glory. There are a wide selection of models that come under "decent stats but not too strong", meaning you can bring pretty experimental lists safely. In a way it's made me appreciate the warscrolls a bit more from a casual perspective, but it has caused a problem competitively. The current P2G has made me aware of how much of a 'narrative' book S2D seems to be. Don't get me wrong, there are loads of units that don't fit their lore, but by 'narrative' I mean there are lots of Warscrolls that just exist and perform fine. I think SCE perform like this too - their competitive winrate is carried by a tiny fraction of their warscrolls, but the others do just fine in a casual sense. This extends to allegiance abilities, especially the Eye of the Gods. In Path to Glory, the Eye is carried over on heroes and it's actually really cool to see your hero grow stronger. But in a normal matched play game it seems close to useless, with only the Krakadrak and Manticore Lord having the chance to benefit. In P2G, people are using on foot heroes as actual combatants so you can challenge them. In matched play, foot heroes are at the back buffing and you're going to struggle to kill a 2+ save Mawkrusha unless you're Archaon (who gets now Eye). Then for units, looking at Chaos Knights as an example, while I don't think they fit their lore, they are 'fair' units in that they are never overwhelming and can be countered, but if played well they can dish out respectable damage. They do also act like cavalry, which gives them a niche. In P2G, this means you can take a unit of them and have them feel pretty useful. In matched play, the opponent can probably shoot them to death, or just charge something useless into them to keep them tied up all game (also possible in P2G, but there are fewer alpha strikes or teleports from experience). So on one hand, it's been nice trying a wide array of units that perform to a satisfying standard. This contrasts against a unit like Slaangors or Black Knights which don't fit any role and are just bad. I feel I can add most things and have them do well enough that I don't regret taking them against other casual lists. On the other hand, in a competitive sense, it only feels as if there are a small number of stand out units - Archaon, Chaos Sorcerer Lord, Chaos Lord, Khorne DP, Marauders, Varanguard (in certain circumstances), and Belakor. Everything else feels a bit overbalanced when it comes across another powerful unit. This may be a criticism more against AoS than the S2D book, but most S2D units feel as if they've had the breaks put on them to make sure they don't get out of hand. If everything was designed like that, it'd be fine (better, even), but when taking the army competitively, anything but our creme of the crop crumbles. In a strange way, some of the design harkens back to AoS 0 where, without points, most things were reigned in. I know this is a bit rambly, but the more I play in P2G, the more I'm pleasantly surprised how well some of my more disliked units do. However, when I move over to matched play, it tends to fall apart unless I bring our strongest stuff. In a way, I think this is the case for 90% of AoS armies, but S2D does feel like it's more overbalanced than average with the number of restrictions that crop up (especially the Aura of Chaos allegiance ability). I'd recommend trying P2G *if* you have a group that won't just treat it like Mini Matched Play. There are a tonne of decent units that we have access to which are fun to play but would never see a matched play table, and you don't have to resort to Archaon to kill something.

Kind of starting a new army in that I'm building up Slaves to Darkness for a Path to Glory army. Now, I say "kind of" because I had quite a few S2D models to use in my Hedonites and they're being reused here, but I've added quite a few things I wouldn't normally use. I've also done a tonne of writing for the army, mostly just to exercise my writing muscles, but I was thinking of posing it here at some point.

A few comments on other social media have mentioned Chaos Marine Possessed being a high possibility (something about a leak); while great for CSM players, I can safely say I would be incredibly disappointed!

I'd really like a new daemon prince sculpt (and rules), the current one feels so underwhelming for the pinnacle of Chaos. Would also love it if it was customisable, but I understand that daemon princes are so varied they can't really facilitate all variations so they tend to default to big devil man. Regardless, I'm hoping for a daemon prince!

I went to Warhammer World (actually the day Henry Cavill was there but I didn't see him) and I gave Hedonites a game vs Gloomspite. - Army Faction: Hedonites of Slaanesh - Army Type: Invaders - Subfaction: None - Grand Strategy: Prized Sorcery - Triumph: Inspired LEADERS Glutos Orscollion (475)** - Spells: Battle Rapture Lord of Pain (155)** - General - Command Traits: Glory Hog - Artefacts of Power: The Rod of Misrule Shardspeaker of Slaanesh (150)** - Artefacts of Power: Arcane Tome - Spells: Judgement of Excess BATTLELINE 5 x Myrmidesh Painbringers (145) 5 x Myrmidesh Painbringers (145) 5 x Hellstriders with Claw-spears (135) 10 x Symbaresh Twinsouls (330)* OTHER 5 x Slickblade Seekers (230)* 5 x Slickblade Seekers (230)* TERRAIN 1 x Fane of Slaanesh (0) CORE BATTALIONS - *Hunters of the Heartlands - **Command Entourage TOTAL POINTS: 1995/2000 It was a fun game, though Gloomspite were tabled turn 4. I won't go over a step-by-step of the game, but I will make a few comments: - Painbringers were surprisingly good, able to tank light hits well; I wouldn't say they're super tanky, but are great at holding up a medium threat and doing some good damage in return. - The Twinsouls were caught in a corner and pretty badly injured turn 1, though did eventually break through. Not a great showing by them, but that was mostly on their positioning. - Glutos was MVP; very tanky, killed quite a lot, dispelled and cast a bit too. Imo, he's one of the few models in Hedonites that I'd call truly strong. - Slickblades were good, though can't take a hit back; buffed by the Lord of Pain, they killed the mangler squig, which was nice. - The Shardspeaker died turn 1, so not much to say about her. - Hellstriders were used to draw the fanatics out and then die. They did their job. - The summoned KoS fluffed its attacks, but its command ability was pivotal for winning the game. It's not worth the points, but is worth the summon. - Lord of Pain was their for battleline, but I did use his command ability a few times with good results. --- Gloomspite are undeniably a bad army (they don't call it "The Good Moon" for a reason), but I did often feel lacking in damage. I think that is part of the design philosophy (to maximise DP), but it's frustrating against glass cannons. Personally, I can't see any of my more competitive list not including Glutos.

Yeah I definitely get this. It does feel as if they've tried to overbalance and this has left some areas feeling barebones - in all honesty, I'd love it if they released a full supplement book to add onto the current skeleton with more narrative rules. As you said, there are a few too many ways it feels like matched play, to the point where a 1000pt PtG game would feel identical to its matched play counterpart. While it wouldn't be an easy fix, I think one of the issues is that most territory is about removing restrictions, which isn't bad on its own but also isn't exciting. It means getting territory boils down to just being able to take more of 'X' rather than giving a benefit over a normal matched play army I do agree about casualty rolls. I've taken a horde army and it's become easier to just replace the entire unit rather than roll to recuperate (especially for the Warcry warbands), whereas the Soulblight player with lots of Bloodknights hasn't taken a single casualty. As for named characters, initially we had the same rule as you but a lot of people wanted to use certain models that only had a named character variant. The new rule is that we can have named characters, but they can't actually represent the named character.

I've been in a Path to Glory game for a while and though the group has enjoyed it a lot, there are a few little annoyances we've had. One of which is that heroes, especially the warlord, don't become much stronger - this is especially true in the case for the few subfactions that grant all heroes command traits off the bat. What that means is renown is almost always better given to units rather than heroes for their veteran abilities. Considering that a Path to Glory is usually about a Warlord's rise to power, it seems odd that the Warlord themselves rarely gets more powerful unless they change their model (which isn't always desired or possible). One of the houserules we're wanting to try is that heroes can gain those same veteran abilities every 15 renown after 15 up to three (so 30, 45, 60). While I can see this getting very strong on some heroes (like Mawkrushas or Zombie Dragons), the abilities are once per battle and can already be given to very strong units like Goregruntas and Blood Knights. I'm not sure if anyone else has experienced otherwise? Are there any other house rules you've used to improve Path To Glory games?

Yeah, Sigvald and Slickblades shouldn't both whiff (hopefully) and will attack one after the other after Sigvald charges. As long as you have a spare command point for their battleshock, an All Out Attack on the Slickblades should mean they get most of their hits through at least. Sigvald is usually tanky enough to survive a round with most things at 1k points, and they're both damaging enough to take out any scalpel parts of the opponent's army.

I've played something like this in Lurid Haze and it did decently well, though I used a Lord of Pain over a Shardspeaker and Twinsouls over Hellstriders for some extra punch. It worked well when Sigvald went into the same thing as the Slickblades (whatever their nastiest thing is). Was a fun list to use though

Unfortunately I think a lot of people treat narrative and open play as "the distraction game", and matched play as the "real" game. Taking away the big centerpiece model from what a large chunk of the community views as the "proper" game wouldn't be taken well. I do agree that it's very hard to balance god models. A compromise would be for the matched play versions to be called "shades" and to be considerably weaker (and cheaper to compensate), and to leave the full fat versions in open and narrative to have fun with. That said, as an aside, for those who haven't played narrative lately, Path to Glory 3e is very similar to matched play - to the point where it more feels like you're building a matched play army slowly. It is more balanced than old P2G but it's not particularly narrative either.

I've been playing a lot of narrative recently at 600 points and I've really enjoyed it more than a lot of recent 2000 point games. However, there is one big caveat, and that's that 600 points only really works when people bring fun fluffy lists. We've had a few people bring stronger units and it falls apart pretty quickly as the lower the points the less can be done to counter the strongest thing on the board, so if the strongest unit the opponent has kills your strongest unit, you've had it. I'd recommend people trying small fun games at 500~pts, but I'd not recommend lower point competitive tournaments. Also, I've noticed that it's the newest players who seem the most desperate to get to 2,000 points. A lot of the more experienced players prefer the lower points lower tier games, but the newer players want the opportunity to use all of their coolest stuff.

Every time I think of Slaangors, I get more frustrated. It's a nice buff in BoC, but even then, they don't benefit from the breyherd stuff so no one would ever take them; they're basically worse minotaurs. I am just baffled by the idea that the rules writers okay'd their rules. Like, surely someone must have noticed how poor they were? Even if you give them +1 rend and damage (putting them at 3 4/3/-2/2), they're about as good as (non-buffed) minotaurs, which aren't considered good. It's baffling.