Enoby

For some more info on what he played against So by no means a super easy ride, though I would assume no Archaon (which I think this list would struggle with thanks to its reliance on mortal wounds). Definitely something to think about. It's mortal wound output is pretty brutal, with the potential 4D6+1D3+Blissbarb shooting mortal wounds at range (though more likely 1-2D6+2D3+6ish from Blissbarbs). Really would like to have seen a game with it.

Vince Venturella just said Bill went 5-0 with this list - interesting!

Thanks for the summary I'll watch the video when away from work.

I agree - I certainly don't think we should let ourselves be exploited by predatory business practises either I think it's just a case of striking a balance and weighing up evidence to evaluate each case individually. If the squeeky cleanest company in the world that has a very positive fan relationship does something underhanded and scummy, I think that they should be criticised for it. Same as if an underhanded and scummy company had a smear campaign against them that consisted of just lies, the lies should be fought against - even if to avoid a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. I, personally, am just very cautious about making judgements without proper evidence in these sorts of situations (e.g. companies with big passionate followings) - it's not even because I like GW that much (they're a company at the end of the day), I'm just really cautious about misinformation because I know how damaging that can be.

Just to touch on this, I really doubt GW will make a public statement on this. While it's gotten a lot of traction here and a bit on Twitter, to the general fan this is unknown - explaining it as fake will only bring attention to it, and there's a chance that it would work out disfavourably for them by giving a negative story a much greater audience (even if it's to clear that story up). That said, if it is fake, you'd hope they'd explain it to that YouTuber and we'd have heard it from there. On the other hand, if it's real, you'd have expected that YouTuber to be reprimanded in some way for sharing the NDA and that doesn't seem to have happened either. Following on from my previous post ages back, it does seem more likely this is real as at least the YouTuber who received this has come forward (and what NQA did was incredibly disrespectful and potentially dangerous). On the other hand, as people have mentioned, there's no proof this was definitely sent by GW - not that this YouTuber is a liar, but rather there could be a troll who's just loving this. Evidence for this being true: - It was definitely received by someone, and you would assume by an official looking email address. - GW has not, to our knowledge contacted the YouTuber to clear up this as false or the wrong NDA. - It's nor evidence per se, but GW has been making more anti-consumer choices lately. Evidence for this being false: - The document is poorly written and poorly formatted; while this doesn't disprove it, it doesn't seem likely that a large company would write such a shoddy legal document. - I will point out straight away that this is hearsay and I've seen no evidence for it, but I've heard from others that this wasn't the NDA given at Gencon, so unless it's incredibly new, then it does seem suspect. - I have seen other YouTubers say this isn't what they received. I believe this, though it doesn't disprove anything. - GW has not stepped in, to our knowledge, to reprimand the YouTuber for sharing this. - It's not evidence per se, but the fandom has become more whipped up in its anger lately, so there's more opportunity/want for those who will to manipulate or just drive hate against GW for their own ends. --- Overall, now I'm still very much on the fence about it, though with the YouTuber coming forward I'm much more likely to believe it. I'm sure some people reading this are probably thinking "why are you so focussed on this being real or fake, rather than discussing the content?" The answer would be twofold for this; the first one is pretty simple, and that's just that I know very little about NDAs so I couldn't say what is and isn't normal for them. From the look of it, it doesn't seem to stop criticism of their products, just about damaging the brand name as a whole (e.g. you can say "I don't like these rules", but you can't say "GW copies the work of smaller creators without crediting them"). If someone with more knowledge can explain why this NDA is so bad, I'd appreciate it. The second is the more important reason, in my mind, and that I've seen disinformation and manufactured outrage ruin a few communities and I really don't want to see the Warhammer community fall into the same dump as them. GW has made some questionable decisions lately, and some of these have really upset the communuty at large; while it's very understandable to be upset by some of these things, we all have to be careful to not let that disappointment be manipulated.

I think these are both from existing warbands

I do think it's silly in all honesty, but to give them credit, the new faction core battalions don't really do anything different to the general core battalions, they just achieve the way you get it differently. It is different to warscroll battalions as you could have one with the effect "once per battle in the hero phase, add 1 to bravery of a single unit in this battalion for that hero phase" contending with "teleport any number of units from this battalion anywhere on the board, more than 3" out of enemy models". The difference could be massive, which did cause haves and have nots (but personally I really liked Warscroll Battalions and would have liked them to remain in matched play with a rework). The new core battalions are just different formations to get the same effects.

Did a bit of a repaint on my Lord on Karkadrak for my Path to Glory campaign - I wasn't happy with first paint job

Just looking at upgrading models with renown points, which is available in the new tomes and tome celestial. Initially I thought it would be a way to save considerable numbers of glory points to add a unit into the roster. But it seems like it saves you about one glory point if that - and the only other benefit is keeping an enhancement if applicable. I may be missing something, but it seems like the 'upgrade' system is a bit half baked? To the point where, if you wanted to upgrade a hero, you'd just be saving time to retire them and replace them.

As mentioned a little while back, I've been playing more Slaves to Darkness recently for a Path to Glory game. My theme has been to start with just spawn, cultists, and marauders lead by a sorcerer and lord. I'm using spire tyrants currently and they're... well they're terrible. But it got me thinking, besides the Iron Golems, I don't think the cultists have a proper design philosophy that isn't just totally overshadowed by 10 marauders. On one hand, the cultists are usually written like Underworld's warbands where the rules are there for fluff but they're never meant to see a matched play game. On the other hand, there's a lot in the book from other warscrolls and allegiance abilities that supports Cultists. It seems like they've gone half and half on whether they're meant to be a fluffy release that's only for narrative games, or a key component of the book, and it's left the Cultists feeling like a massive letdown and filler in the book, while also making certain parts of the book feel pointless because the parts they support are useless (e.g. besides Iron Golems in a niche situation, why would you ever summon cultists over marauders with Ravagers?). Anyone got any more clarity on the purpose of cultists in this book?

I'm pretty sure that must always have been the case, looking at my battletome, but I'm certain, for whatever reason, I and a decent chunk of others have played it on a to hit. And yeah, it's almost definitely a simple mistake caused by most MWs being on a to hit, but I definitely remember thinking two things: "it's a slight nerf to Glutos in AoS 3 as 6s can't explode and do mortal wounds" and "it's weird that Painbringer Kyazu does mortal wounds on a hit and the other Painbringers do it on a wound". Obviously I'm mistaken, but usually with mistakes like that, they'd be because I didn't read it carefully enough, but for this I feel I put specific thought into it, and a few other people were of a similar mindset. It's definitely a mistake, just a weird shared one.

I don't know if I'm having a Mandella Effect moment here, but I swear Glutos's Mortal Wound minion was on a 6 to hit rather than to wound...

+Mod hat+ I understand Brexit is a very charged topic and it can be hard to not get political with it as it does have something to do with the current delays, but please stay away from disparaging remarks

Only in Slaves to Darkness, unfortunately I believe the wording is something like "in a Slaves to Darkness Army, Cultists can take a Mark of Chaos", so I don't think that applies outside of the faction.

10 is the minimum for both marauders and daemonettes. Cypher lords would also work, but wouldn't have either the Slaanesh or Hedonite keyword, if that matteted to you.

The only thing I can add to this, which is incredibly flimsy "evidence" (if you can even call it that), is I think when GW was doing that "show us your units for each AoS army", Idoneth had the second or third lowest number of comments showing the army after Fyreslayers. It's not good evidence, but it might lend credence to the rumour - that said, I don't think Facebook really accounts for the full customer base. I hope Idoneth have done well, and that they get more

Probably marauders, I'd say. While not Hedonites, they do hit hard and come on 25mm bases. Only issue is that you'd need a lot of them, which isn't ideal due to cost. Some of the cultists would also work, but they're not markable outside of Slaves to Darkness so that hurts. Other than that, daemonettes are an option, but like marauders they're plentiful and they are daemons (not that that really matters, but you may prefer them to not have the daemon keyword).

I think this is a rather questionable line of reasoning. Certainly GW has done shady things, and this could be one of them, but having your stance as "guilty until proven innocent, and if they're proven innocent then it's their fault for looking so guilty in the first place" seems to leave you open to manipulation. While GW have been more anti-consumer recently in some regards, letting yourself fall for reactionary lies because it supports how you feel is a dangerous path to tread. Personally I think it's fake, though I'm open to being proven wrong, but my biggest worry if it's fake is that this was created by a "GW hater" to stir the pot, and they've seen it's very successful - it shows that a community is open to being lied to. Reactionary hot takes without evidence based on supporting a feeling (especially anger) are a blight on deeper discussion.

I think it may just be that I assume close to everything on social media is fake unless it comes from a respectable source (e.g. BBC news) or it comes from the primary source (e.g. if Goobertown Hobbies said that they had received the NDA from GW directly, or if posted by GW for some reason). That's not to say that this can't be real or Goobertown is intentionally lying (I don't think they are), but it does seem like perfectly timed rage-bait without anyone willing to claim to be the recipient of the NDA, and the other influencers are saying it's not what they signed. I'm just very cautious about falling for reactionary rage-bait without proper evidence to back it up, especially as it seems some sections of the Warhammer community (more on the 40k side) are angry at GW at the moment and so would have the motive to make stuff up to stir the pot (again, not to say Goobertown is making stuff up, but rather he found a lie). Of course, I'll eat my words should this prove to be real, but I think it's very important not to get jumped up at internet rumours designed to anger. Edit: I think this is where my issues start: Someone brings up reasons it may be fake, and the OP doesn't respond to any of them and just states they're convinced. It seems almost faith-like, with many people adamantly accepting this as the truth, but being unable or unwilling to substantiate. It really reminds me of those fake articles your older relatives share on Facebook, and when questioning them they just say "well it sounds real". This isn't to say that this is 100% fake, but every time someone has asked for proof or pointed out flaws, it's come back as "bro trust me".

I mentioned it on the main thread, but after picking up my S2D again for Path to Glory after putting them down from 2k points games a while ago, I can echo the sentiment that we don't feel as we should. I've said it before, but S2D are a very fun army to play, and they're also very strong with some builds. If you want a thinking army focusing on buffs and objective capturing, as well as control spells and units with cheap chaff, S2D is great. If you want to feel like you're walking down the Eight-fold Path to glory or damnation, you're out of luck - this Eight-fold Path takes you from the fastest person in the world as a Marauder to a buff bot who'll not see combat as a Lord. No, they're not weak, but they're narratively unfulfilling. This is especially frustrating in something like PtG, where I'd like my Chaos Lord to be upfront and killing their bigger units and maybe rolling on the Eye of the Gods table. But I'm usually punished for that as they have little to no survivability or true killing power. Instead I'm better grinding down objectives and fleeing combat as I win through battleplans. This would be fine if I was playing something like Goblins, but not Slaves to Darkness. I think the Eye of the Gods table is the worst offender because it's so close to being cool. The concept of it - that your hero upgrades as they do dangerous deeds - is fantastic. The problem lies in the fact that these abilities work only on a very select number of units, with only one of which (Karkadrak lord) having any business in combat while not feeling like a waste of points. For every other hero, either they're not good enough to consider taking in the first place, or more likely, they do pitiful damage and have poor survivability that they'll never see the table, nevermind the fact that rolling a 7 (the most common roll) gives them nothing! That's not to say you can't have buffing heroes - certainly, you can and should. But a Chaos Lord can buff and also be scary in combat, and indeed should be. They didn't rise through the ranks by yelling at other people. While I haven't use Warriors or Knights in my PtG list, having used them at 2k, I've always been disappointed. Mostly because neither does much damage at all, while still being just okay at tanking - the best use for warriors at the time seemed to be cheap chaff, which just feels wrong. Chaos Knights may do good damage if buffed on a charge, and then flail about for a bit as they're picked off one by one. It plays into one of my most disliked tropes, where the bad guy gets their big evil power up and loses anyway, making you wonder what the whole point of it was. Slaves to Darkness feel a similar way - what's the point of selling your soul and life to the Dark Gods if you don't really end up much better for it? I don't think S2D is weak, but that's almost a problem, because in the next tome they can't just slap on a 3+ save on our armoured units and call it a day. The book isn't really broken, so there's not much incentive to fix it - it just doesn't play how many people think it should. As mentioned before, Khorne shares the exact same problem, and unfortunately that's not been 'fixed' since the beginning of AoS.

Not really sure about that, in all honesty. I was reading the Warhammer Fantasy RPG second edition book (2006 release I think) and that had a story about a man getting Ungor blood on him and slowly mutating into a chaos spawn. There was also a piece about how children tainted by chaos are killed by witch hunters, otherwise they turn into beastmen. While they weren't ever like Warriors of Chaos where they were religious devotees to a particular god, they always seemed intrinsically linked to Chaos through mutations and dark gifts. They weren't just goat orks, even if they're often seen as background chaff. (PS, I know the RPG wasn't written by GW, but it was licensed by them and I'm assuming the lore was checked by them too. My point is more that the Beastmen have been seen as connected to Chaos for a long time)

I do wonder if a loss of free warscrolls will end up being a profit loss for them in the long run. I know I only really become interested in other armies after having a look at the full package, rather than going out on a whim and buying the full tome and just hoping I'd like it. It does seem like a lot of other people feel this way too. It works for 40k, but they've had a lot longer time to build up a loyal fanbase for each army, whereas AoS still feels like it's finding its feet. In all honesty, I can only see this decreasing the number of people playing AoS, which I think comparatively to 40k is pretty small going by their financial reports (but obviously much larger than many other games).

I do like your list, and I think Belekor is the best shot against Archaon (besides another Archaon!). Your best bet would be, if possible, kill the sorcerer lord ASAP. If Archaon can be denied rerolling hits and wounds, as well as a free +1 to save, you'll have a much higher chance. Lurid Haze may be the best option to assassinate, but it really depends where they place the sorcerer. Other than that, just place as much chaff in the way as possible for Archaon until you've used your other models to kill his stuff, then try finish off Archaon. It'll be a tough fight, but very winnable Just kill anything that buffs Archaon ASAP.

Pleasantly surprises by the app so far! Perhaps I'm missing it, but it would have been nice to have an option for open play and especially Path to Glory lists (with places to mark glory points etc).

I think you're right. There's a lot we could benefit from, but not a lot we absolutely need. That's not to say we'd be perfect with better points, but I think we'd feel much less restricted in what we could take. I've been playing a bit of Slaves to Darkness, a battletome some AoS personalities really rate, but when you look at their forum on this site it seems most people are negative about it. I see it from both sides - on one hand, the battletome is pretty fun and there are a lot of buffs and cool control moves you can do that make it interesting to play. On the other hand, only about two units feel good to use without buffs (marauders and Archaon) - everything else relies on these buffs and/or control tricks to work, otherwise you're left with lackluster warscrolls. It's almost the opposite battletome to ours, where we have very few buffs and high points but usually pretty good base warscrolls, S2D have low points and good buffs, but some really poor base units. I think in some ways, it's a case of the grass being greener on the other side. It's admittedly more fun to build an S2D list, even a bad one, as you can think on all the little buffs you'll give them and how each unit/ability can help the other. But on the other hand, when the buffs go badly or a condition isn't met (e.g. a charge bonus), S2D can be a massive drag to play as what you do on the tabletop is totally different to what you would expect in the lore. I think there are also far more bad warscrolls in S2D - as in, units that will be poor no matter the cost, with cultists being the worst offenders and in all honesty the concept of Darkoath and generic chaos monsters feels totally underutilised. I'd even say that around 50% of the warscrolls in S2D feel like they were tagged on with no real place for them. I mention this as, as mentioned before, a lot of AoS personalities really rate the S2D book and strongly dislike ours. That's fair enough, but after going back to the S2D book a little bit, I think the only real difference is fun when building lists, and I find Slaanesh more fun to play in general. That said, I would say the Lumineth book is the highest quality battletome they've released for AoS and I'd prefer every battletome was of the same rules quality.