Enoby

It sounds good until you see the damage potential of most BoK warscrolls 🥲

I'm really happy about the update, though I do wonder if the monstrous action to destroy scenery may become a bit of a silver bullet. Hopefully not, but a lot of the nicest stuff goes away when a monster gets too close and rolls a 3+. On the other hand, there's a lot of good in here and I'm hoping it continues to when you get a battletome.

I'm really glad the changes they made for BoC are significant. Especially when comparing them to their Broken Realms counterpart, these changes help a lot - maybe we'll even see more regular success in tournaments. -2 rend on mass bestigors is pretty great.

While I've not taught kids AoS, when teaching new players I can concur that the double turn tends to raise the most complaints and has put people off should it happen at a bad moment. While "play around it" can work for experienced players, new players (especially kids) won't know how to and so their first experiences (likely their most important experiences) are going to be tainted. It's close to impossible to prove the majority consensus of all players, especially players who left/didn't start the game. But from anecdotal evidence it has put some people off. If we assume you can play around the double turn (which I believe you can), and that poorer players struggle to plan around it (which can happen), then new players who will almost always be poor players (due to lack of experience) will likely not be able to play around it and so more likely to experience the worst case scenario double turn. One bad experience in the beginning can turn someone off a system for life.

I do hope, if it is a quiet year for AoS, we have a longer time until 4th edition. I know it's unlikely but 3e seems to have a lot of potential to make small improvements to.

Just a little thing if it helps anyone, one of my friends is trans and she used Gender GP in the UK to get her meds in a few weeks It is private so it does cost (can't remember the amount but not utterly unaffordable iirc - maybe £200?), but it helped them so much quicker than what was on the NHS. I know how important it can be to get medicine, so I thought it was worth mentioning for those on the years-long waiting lists

I'm not sure if this would fall under 'gaping power difference', and it was 40K, but at the beginning of 8th edition I had a game of Chaos Knights vs Orks. Neither had a codex at this point. The knights have very long ranged guns, and the orks at the time had very bad shooting without the codex rules to help. There were some turns that I knew the orks couldn't get me, so I knew I'd be safe for even more shooting as I moved further away. I went first and destroyed their transport, leaving them slow, and they spent their turn playing catch up. I spent second turn shooting more and moving away (being much faster than orks), and they spent second turn playing catch up. I think it was either 3rd or 4th turn they caught up, and by that point they were too injured to do all that much. This situation is unlikely in AoS as there aren't many units with very good shooting and most armies are very fast. So I'm not using that particular situation to argue for double turns, but the experience itself of knowing I was safe for two or three turns did warm me up to the double turn more. While the vast majority of armies in AoS now can't be outpaced by a retreating opponent, there are a few (e.g. Nurgle) that can. In these cases you can create very safe turns for yourself with a single screen where your opponent knows their turn is going to be mostly wasted, and there's no risk of them moving immediately after destroying the screen. Of course you can double screen in preparation for a double turn, but that's a lot more resources, especially for some armies. I wouldn't call them solved games, but I would call them solved turns. Some would argue that these are fine and show greater tactical acumen, others would say it gives too much advantage to the first turn player to command the flow of battle. The question is whether the lack of 'solved turns' is worth the double turn.

I may be misremembering, but I think Blades of Khorne AoS 0 and AoS 2 both used the same/very similar covers of Korgus Khul too. Edit: No, I'm incorrect, Khorne warriors just all look identical to me It was a Blood Warrior on the first tome.

Nice to see a roadmap Though as others have said, the reused covers are a bit questionable - I doubt it has much baring on what's in the book, but it does suggest that less care went into it. Of course, that may well not be true, and Nighthaunt are reusing art despite having multiple new models, but it does make the book somehow seem of a lesser quality.

I think everyone who reads their scroll gets a pang of hope with that rule, thinking that they may have some sort of use as horde killers, only for that hope to be crushed on a second reading.

As someone who plays a lot of God-marked S2D, I wouldn't actually mind this with two major caveats: - All currently markable units were available in the god books, and all of them could benefit from allegiance abilities. - There was a minor faction (like Legion of the First Prince) that allowed mixed armies, but it wasn't the focus of an entire army book. I think S2D feel a bit confused as a faction; part of their allegiance ability feels like it wants you to run "Grand Alliance: Chaos Mortals", part of it wants you to run mono-mark thanks to the hero needed for Aura of Chaos, part of it wants cultists to be a key part to the army despite (for a long time until a few months ago) not benefitting from marks, and part of it is focused on narrative rules with Eye of the Gods. It's overall a cool book that feels like it bit off more than it could chew, and many warscrolls that leave a lot to be desired. Having a mixed mark army should still be possible for those who've created one and like the idea of all mortals gathering under Archaon's banner, but the core S2D book needs a look at. It's held back by trying to be so many things at once but never really feeling like it achieves its goal of simulating a grand host of unstoppable Chaos Warriors.

Yeah, I'm glad the info's been shared but I'm a little worried it might just be another battlebox. Let's hope it's a more substantial update, at least for modernising some Skaven.

To try answer the question from my own perspective, I think Malifaux (which is more of a skirmish than a wargame) is better designed, though it's hard to make a 1:1 comparison. Importantly, they use alternative activations - with certain abilities you can 'double turn' (as in have two friendly models act without interruption) but because each activation is much less impactful this doesn't feel bad (and usually lets your opponent do the same later on in the round). Malifaux is much more based on objectives and less on killing, which often means the opponent can answer activations in kind (as in, they'll not have their models wiped off the bored so the game is much more back and forth). The double turn is much more controversial because you get to do everything again, which can overwhelm an opponent. Personally I'm mixed on the rule. I do see the advantages of ensuring that one person can't guarantee their win, and to give another layer of tactical depth. I don't tend to lose much to the double turn as I can negate most advantages it gives (and will occasionally allow myself to be double turned). However, I do see some glaring issues: - I've heard people say "if you lose to the double turn, you'd lose anyway", and while this can be true, I think what's more likely is that it totally skews the balance of 60/40 games. If you're the army on 60% left and you go again, reducing the 40% to only 20%, then they likely have no chance of winning what could have been a close game. I think this is where the "ruining games" idea comes from - when what looks to be a balanced battle becomes irreparably skewed because of a double turn. - To link to the above, others have said that it's fine because 'winning faster' is a good thing, but I'd disagree. In theory in sounds sensible - if you're going to lose, why drag it out? But in addition to the above on skewing close games, it isn't fun to be tabled without doing much besides moving. For example, in a casual game, imagine someone getting first turn and simply moving up their 2000pt list up to capture objectives. Yes, they likely made tactical mistakes, but this is a very normal move in casual games. Then player 2 comes along and charges them with the bulk of their army, wiping off 30% of their models with a nasty charge. Player 2 then wins the roll off and goes again, this time getting everything that wants to be in, in and wiping off another 40%. Player 1 is left with their support models and no chance to come back. They moved their army once before having to pack it all away again, probably feeling pretty bad about the game. Tactical errors or not from Player 1, that's not a good reason to have a mechanic that can wipe away an army without the opposing player getting to do much interaction at all. Granted, AoS 3 has helped this a bit, damage is still so high in AoS that you need to seriously invest in defences to tank, and this isn't guaranteed in casual games. - I think my main issue is just how long you can be sat there waiting for your opponent's turns to finish. Maybe I just play with slow people, but it can easily take 30 mins or more for them to finish their turn, so having to stand there for an hour with minimal interaction is pretty boring - and can be quite frustrating when most of the interaction is being told how many mortal wounds are being taken. - Finally, close to every opponent I've had has enjoyed the game less once they've been double turned. Whether that's because they've been wiped off the board, have to wait longer to play, or just don't enjoy the feeling of helplessness, I've only had a handful of games that have been made more enjoyable by the rule. Most of the time it sours the rest of the game - or at least that turn. I don't particularly like my opponents feeling bad, so I feel pretty guilty about taking a double turn against some people. --- I know I've given a lot of negatives but I'm not on the side of 'remove the double turn', but rather 'reform the double turn'. While it wouldn't help the time issue, more defensive advantages when being made (not choosing) to go second would help everything but the time issue. Alternatively, alternating activations would be a big boon to the system (but would need some pretty huge changes to the game). For now, the double turn is important as a competitive or semi-competitive level where set turns would lead to obvious strategies. In a casual sense, it can help bring people back from the edge, but from my experience it usually just frustrates them.

I do agree that GW's rules writing is inconsistent, though I don't think "sin/bin guy" is super useful for a few reasons: - It creates an imaginary scapegoat for "bin guy" whenever there's a bad book (e.g. "this book is bad so it must have been written by bin guy") when in reality rules writers write a mix of bad and good books (the first Slaanesh book and the second were written by the same person, but they're totally different ends of the power curve), so the discussion often turns into "who let bin guy write another book" and that's based on a false premise. - Because of the above, blame can turn to the wrong direction - if someone can write a great book and a terrible book, maybe it's not their skill but rather time constraints, mismanagement, miscommunication, or upper level pressure that's causing them to write sub-par rules. If a writer gets a day to write 10 warscrolls, then those warscrolls will likely be poor quality, but the fault lies with the person who set the deadline. - It creates an 'us vs them' when a writer feels as if they're being insulted, and as well as that just not being a nice feeling for the writer, it may also make them less willing to work with the community. Don't get me wrong, I do think GW can and has produced some shoddy rules and I think it's quite telling when people are nervous rather than excited about a new battletome. Someone, likely more than one person, looked at the Slaangor rules and said it was okay - some decisions are truly baffling. The rules team can definitely be wrong, but it's not as if there's some terrible writer who's managed to cling onto their job, there's a good chance it's a collection of mistakes and pressures that can cause even the most esteemed writer to create something rubbish. I get "bin guy" almost describes a phenomena rather than a person, but seeing how it's discussed in the wider online community, some people do seem to be under the impression that there's two groups of writers - the ones who write books they like, and the ones that write books that suck. TL;DR - GW produces some poor rules, but it's not the fault of one person and acting as such detracts from what is likely a larger issue in the company (and is just not that nice for the writer to read).

On the bright side, loads of times the battle box rules are especially temporary - sometimes only lasting a month or so. No clue why they do it like this (maybe these are beta rules), but hopefully this isn't the final product for Fyreslayer warscrolls.

If it offers any hope, Daemonettes were changed for a very brief time when Wrath and Rapture came out, so let's hope Namarti get a change too despite not being a new model.

It should also be noted that current narrative play is very similar to matched play in that you use points and the unit restrictions are quite similar to the matched play restrictions. I'd say current Path to Glory is a lot more complex than most matched play games due to all of the steps after a game. I imagine, as @Neil Arthur Hotep said, when people say that most AoS games are narrative and that the devs play narrative, I think what they mean is that most games aren't cutting edge competitive or designed to be. The game is very likely mostly played at a 'build a 1k-2k point army you like the look of' level, and designed around that philosophy which is why so much can slip through (as well as time constraints and other pressures). It's not a 'narrative' game to make a story about Sir Ethal Brightshield, Lord Castellant and his 100% liberator retinue if it's played using matched play rules. It's a matched play list with a story and a theme, which from my experience is the most common way to play. Narrative, in a AoS design sense, is synonymous with Path to Glory, which is rarely played from my experience (though I do play it). While the argument might be "the people playing narrative styled matched play lists" don't care about balance, I don't think this is necessarily true. They may not play the most powerful thing, but they'll not enjoy it if their themed faction they've put a lot of love and care into gets obliterated turn 2. TL;DR - 'true' competitive is likely a minority, as is 'true' P2G narrative, but casual matched play with a theme is likely the most common.

I agree. Not to get too much into other games, but you're right that AoS is a wargame with objectives but doesn't really have units that interact with them (besides a few specific examples like SoB and Brutes). For those who don't know, in Malifaux, to score an objective it's very likely you'll need to do something active, and objectives are randomised per game (you get a set of 5 schemes and 1 strategy). You choose what you're playing after finding this out, and tailor your list to be the best at the given schemes (choosing 2 of 5) and strategy, as well as who can deny them. I'll try not to go too deep into the mechanics, but some schemes will have you run around to the opponent's side and actively use (using 1 of the maximum 10 per game) actions to put down a marker. Other schemes just need you to stand still in the middle and not die, while making sure no one else is near you. So you could have a very expensive, tough to kill, very damaging, fast model that's great in one situation but very poor in another. This gets even more complex with counter scheming. What this ends up meaning is, in general, most crews look different every time they are played - or at least different in small ways. In Age of Sigmar, usually when a unit is good, it's good in every situation because objectives are captured passively or battle tactics are won doing things you'd probably do anyway. For example, Broken Ranks requires you (preferably using a monster) to destroy a battleline unit. So long as you pick this at the right time, there's no downside to trying to go for this. Units that are already good at killing will be good at this, in the same way that units which are good at killing will be good at clearing and objective and taking that. In Malifaux, Outflank requires you to drop two markers using two models at the side of the board. This will often require three actions per model (so six overall). This means that cheap models have an advantage over stronger models because you can take more of them and each of their actions is 'worth' less compared to your general action count. On the downside, these models will be low impact in damage and often a lot easier to kill, and so would be much worse at a scheme like Assassinate (try to kill the opposing leader). To try and bring this back on the topic of Stormcast and their dragons, I think the homogenisation of what makes a good scroll in AoS is what makes Stormcast so hard to balance for as they have so many warscrolls. The Dragons, regardless of if they're "OP" or not, seem to have the overall best stats for their points in the book and fullfill the "best unit" role best. However I don't really see a solution to fixing this without a big rules overhall as it's quite fundamental to AoS's current design; even upping the points of the dragons won't solve the fundamental issue that SCE players face of a lot of their book being overshadowed by the next best unit. (Note, I should add that the Malifaux design isn't necessarily perfect and it can be very new/unskilled player unfriendly, whereas AoS is much more open and inviting as a game regardless of skill level. Skill certainly does matter in AoS, but the skill floor is much lower.)

Mostly to generate DP, but can be okay if you have a spare artifact on a KoS (or just want to take a MW on a summoned KoS who didn't get in the turn they were summomed). It's a pretty good scenery piece, and being able to summon from it helps a lot (especially as you don't really need it close if you don't care much about the +1 to hit so you can keep it tucked away). It's also easy to transport as it's pretty flat, which is great.

I've been playing a few other table top games recently (mostly Malifaux), and using AoS for narrative, but it's really made me aware of the difference in quality of some rules. That's not to say the other games are perfect, but it does feel AoS often gets loads more "what were they thinking" moments. In Malifaux, for example, there are overpowered and underpowered crews (armies) but the most powerful are along the "this needs toning down" lines and the least are "this isn't quite doing what it should be" and can usually be solved with a few tweaks. I don't think, in Malifaux's 3rd edition, there's been any crew that could wipe someone else out first or second turn. In AoS, we've had things like 2019 Slaanesh which was egregiously overpowered to say the least. A few OP things slipping through the gaps is understandable, but I am genuinly curious as to how some things get greenlit (e.g. 14" move, always strike last, double pile in, summon themselves and more Keepers). I don't know quite where the dragons fall, but in general it is quite telling when a consensus of best in battletome is developed so quickly. I don't think the rules writers are incompetent, but I do think they likely have limited time to write the battletome to the best of their abilities. In addition, it does feel like there's not a cohesive way battletomes are designed (but this may be changing in AoS 3). I do hope, in the future, the designers are given more time and space for playtesting, editing, and coalescing ideas for each battletome, rather than having each one as a separate project.

While you're correct that it's incredibly difficult to balance with casual players in mind, I think it's a much larger discussion as to whether competitive players should be the goal of balance. I think it's very likely that pro players (and competitive tournament players in general) are the tiny minority of AoS players, and that casual 'pick up an army and play' are in the vast majority. It's also true that pro players, by virtue of being pro, likely know more about the game and how best to play. As such, if an army is strong in the pro scene then it's 'truly' strong - as in, it can beat other strong armies used at their best by people who are good at spotting strong armies. If an army is winning a lot at a pro scene then there's a good chance it will also be strong at a casual scene too; it's rare that a meta army will be too complicated to use at a casual level to good effect. Thus a nerf can work at the casual and pro scene when based off the competitive scene, which is how it currently is. However, the difficulty comes from armies that aren't good at a tournament level as pro players know how to effectively counter them with higher skill, but are a problem at a casual level. I'll call this the AoS 1 Thundertusk effect. For those not in AoS 1, the old Thundertusk could do 6 mortal wounds at 18" range on a 2+. Basically, it deleted little heroes. It could be beaten with not having important <6 wound heroes in range, playing the objective, or using chip damage to turn the 6 into D6. At a competitive scene, the army was a bit of a dud, but people hated it at a casual scene. If a unit is making the game unenjoyable for the larger player base, some would argue that it should be nerfed regardless of how "truly" bad it is. Others would say that people can just get better and use their improved skills instead of a nerf, or at casual games just ask people not to bring it. Personally I think the "ask not to bring it" argument is a dud as, while "casual games" invoke the idea of friends around a table, a lot of them are pick up and plays with strangers where you can't really have much of a say in their list. The argument of 'just get gud' is, in my mind, the stronger one but even then some people don't enjoy "getting gud" by changing up their playstyle (especially if they only play once every few months) and some people aren't really capable of it (especially when learning the game). On the other hand, a nerf to a 'truly' bad unit isn't fun for those few who want to use it at a competitive level and have now gotten even worse. Overall, looking at the Thundertusk, this was solved by changing what it did alongside the rest of the army. It became more of a horde clearer rather than a sniper and the rest of the army improved with it, helping both sides. I think, in the case of these awkward "AoS 1 Thundertusks" the best solution is a rewrite that tries to satisfy both crowds. Though for the dragons, that won't likely happen for some time. I've personally not played against them so I don't have much of an opinion, but I do think it's something that the design team really need to focus on in the future. I think first turn charge alpha strikes and high ranged mortal wounds have a very high chance of turning into AoS 1 Thundertusks, and should only be included in the game very sparsely because they become very hard to appease both crowds with.

I should be at a small tournament soon - no clue how nasty the lists will be, so I'm going to play something silly. I don't expect to win, in fact I may well go 0-5, but I want to take the opportunity to see what this ends up doing: - Army Faction: Hedonites of Slaanesh - Army Type: Pretenders LEADERS Glutos Orscollion (475) Keeper of Secrets (420) - General - Command Traits: Hunter of Godbeasts, Master of Magic - Artefacts of Power: Sceptre of Domination - Spells: Slothful Stupor BATTLELINE 5 x Hellstriders with Claw-spears (135) 11 x Blissbarb Archers (170) 5 x Hellstriders with Claw-spears (135)* OTHER 10 x Symbaresh Twinsouls (330)* 5 x Myrmidesh Painbringers (145)* ENDLESS SPELLS & INVOCATIONS 1 x Umbral Spellportal (70) 1 x Wheels of Excruciation (100) CORE BATTALIONS - *Hunters of the Heartlands TOTAL POINTS: 1980/2000 So basically I just hope that slothful stupor goes off on their big model! I've not used the wheels so I wanted to give them a spin. It's not a good list, but it's something different!

Yeah, that'd work well If you wanted more of a focus on Painbringers (over Twinsouls), I'd suggest this list: - Army Faction: Hedonites of Slaanesh - Army Type: Invaders LEADERS Lord of Pain (155) - General - Command Traits: Glory Hog - Artefacts of Power: The Rod of Misrule Shardspeaker of Slaanesh (150) BATTLELINE 5 x Myrmidesh Painbringers (145) 11 x Blissbarb Archers (170) 5 x Myrmidesh Painbringers (145) OTHER 5 x Slickblade Seekers (230) TOTAL POINTS: 995/1000 This will be quite a nice well-rounded list Summon-wise, your best units in 2000pts are usually (like 80% of the time) a Keeper of Secrets or 30 daemonettes. However, at 1000 points you may struggle to get these until turn 3, which may be a little too late. 10-20 daemonettes are still a good choice, but at that level I'd actually argue fiends are better against monsters, and the exalted seeker chariot is a good summon too (if you need some mortal wounds or a healing spell). I'd not recommend a KoS until you're sure you enjoy the army - they are a great summon and very consistently easy to summon, but they're a pricey model. You can build a lot on the above army, including Sigvald and Glutos as two very solid units if you like them.

Recently I've been looking around the other battletome threads in this forum, as well as Facebook groups and Discords, and one thing that's stood out to me is how many people think their battletome is poorly designed. The reasons for this differ, but it's rare to see people have a wholly positive opinion of a battletome (to the point where I can probably only name Daughters of Khaine as a battleltome where 90% of DoK players were happy with it). In addition, it's very common to see a "grass looks greener" perspective between armies. For example, I distinctly remember reading someone who said that their battletome was rubbish and considerably worse than Slaves to Darkness (which they believed was the best designed battletome), but when you look at S2D discussion threads the opinion is pretty mixed about the book (leaning on the negative). As we've reached our first three 3rd edition battletomes, I can't say I've seem much applause about them. Certainly they have good things, but the most common comments have been "Bonesplittaz have been nerfed and not much else has been changed", "Terrible internal balance with some units that stand out too much", and "overly bitty with very expensive units". Of course, the internet is likely to always go on a negative slant, but that brings me to the title question: If the vast majority of battletomes have very mixed reactions in the community, what makes a good battletome? Other questions would be, "What examples would you give of a good battletome?" and "why is it that so many don't meet the cut of generally been accepted as good - is it just bias?" Personally, I do think a lot of this comes down to the grass looking greener; that's not to say you should never compare battletomes, but it's easy to go in with blinkers on. For example, a lot of Slaanesh players (myself included) are disappointed thar we have much less synergy in our book, but other battletomes sometimes have so much synergy that it practically builds the army for you with clear 'correct' choices (I find this an issue with S2D). But on the other hand, there are definitely things that we like to see in a battletome: - a variety of sub-allegiances, all of which are viable and there's no clear winner - a large number of varied warscrolls, none of which outshine another - ways to have units work together (synergy) without feeling as if you have to take a particular model in 100% of games - an allegiance ability that feels useful in nearly all situations, but not overpowered or overly complex - for me, the most important thing is that the battletome feels narratively consistent with the faction - e.g. a Mighty Lord of Khorne should hit like a truck compared to being a 'lead from the back' sort of guy Of course, all of this is easier said than done. What do you think makes a good battletome, and do you have a battletome you'd say is as close to perfect as it can be? * Please note, when I say "battletomes", I'm also referring to the warscrolls

I'd really recommend the battlebox for a 1000 points list (minus the Slaangors) In general, all of our units are pretty decent (besides Slaangors) so we have the advantage of not really having one list that works. Something simple and cheap for 1000 points would be: - Army Faction: Hedonites of Slaanesh - Army Type: Invaders LEADERS Lord of Pain (155) - Glory Hog, Rod of Misrule OR Shardspeaker (150) - Glory Hog, Rod of Misrule BATTLELINE 11 x Blissbarb Archers (170) 5 x Hellstriders with Hellscourges (135) OTHER 5 x Myrmidesh Painbringers (145) (battleline with Lord of Pain General) 5 x Symbaresh Twinsouls (165) (battleline with Lord of Pain General) 5 x Slickblade Seekers (230) TOTAL POINTS: 1000/1000 The Shardspeaker variant would be cheaper as that comes in the box, but would leave you will less battleline (though she's probably a better support). With that variant, you'd only need to buy some Hellstriders (or find them on Ebay). You would likely need some models for summoning, but to save yourself money, at 1k points there's no need to dive into a KoS - I'd recommend the Start Collecting box (building the exalted chariot with herald). This should give a decent small summoning pool and also allows you to mix and match daemons into your army. Hope this helps!