Enoby

While true, I do think they could use qualitative data gathering in the form of quaterly surveys, asking people's opinions. There are, of course, two downsides to this: - People answering these surveys are very biased - It take a very long time to parse this information, and turn it into anything useful While there's no answer to the latter, the former can be aided in a few ways. The first is having an honesty statement at the top - just something simple like "Please be honest when answering this questions - just because you play a faction, doesn't mean you should be trying to make it more powerful". It won't stop everyone, but will likely help against good faith participants subconsciously asking for buffs. The second is looking for patterns over specifics - this can be aided with a use of multiple choice questions to go alongside an answer box. So, for example, if one person selects "Squigs are OP" for the most powerful armies tab, they'll likely be on their own so this won't be investigated further, but if a large chunk of people who both have and haven't selected they play Blades of Khorne say they're the worst army for fulfilling narrative, then they can look deeper into the reasons. There are quite a few qualitative statistical tests that could help guide the answer and try to remove as much bias as possible. Finally, qualitative opinions can be assessed with common sense, to a degree. If loads of answers are "I hate Stormcast, they suck", then these can probably be discounted as either people with way too much bias, or people who don't know/don't express they know the game that well. There may also be an option of different languages other than English getting involved, but I'm not sure what GW's capability is with that. Overall fan opinion is likely to be all over the place, but looking at something simple like: "Check if large percentage of players of X army dislike X army" Could help a lot to get a more casual look at AoS.

I agree. I think it's fantastic they're talking about it, but casual play can't be ignored. From my understand, Blades of Khorne sit at around 47% winrate, which is above the danger zone. However, in a casual environment, I don't know a single person who enjoys playing them. To most, the problem is that they just "play wrong" - they don't feel like rampaging bezerkers, but rather weak strategists who need cheerleaders to stand a chance against a goblin in a fist fight. In a casual sense, they're rubbish and have turned people away from the game as a whole (in my experience). From a competitive standpoint, they're fine. When they said that they used qualitative data, that's good, but it shouldn't just be from playtesters. If an 'unqualified' community is saying the same thing, then it should at least be investigated. Even some sort of survey a week after the balance updates would help collect voices.

The local group around my area has dried up too, unfortunately. A lot of that was due to drama, according to the remaining member, but they've really struggled to get the game running again unfortunately. I've no doubt that this is partially due to the residue drama - I'm not sure what happened, but it was a big schism in the end. But even from those who played afterwards didn't seem too into continuing. If I were to hazard a guess why, and to relay my own experiences, it's because AoS currently seems to be a competitively geared game without the mechanics needed to feel satisfying. I've played AoS, 40k, and Malifaux. Out of those, Malifaux is by far the most tactically demanding but it suits it as it's a skirmish game very focussed around scoring points over killing things. 40k, when I played it, was very lethal and there were a lot of hard counters, but you felt more in control as you have lots of options when building lists - though balance was rubbish, it had a strong illusion of choice. In AoS, I've found the game to retain the high lethality but with fewer options so you feel less in control, even if the balance is actually much better than 40k. For example, I had a game of Slaanesh vs Ironjawz. Despite my best efforts screening, by turn 2 the Ironjawz had wiped out a good 3/4 of my army. We played again, the Ironjawz player failed the charge, and I counter charged leaving them with only about 1/3 of their army left. Technically a 50% win rate, but it didn't feel satisfying to play in either case. It felt quite similar in a tournament I was in; I came second with a S2D Archaon list, but most games were just slaughterfests as soon as bases touched. Definitely a part of playing Archaon lists, but it seemed to also be the case with Squigs vs Ossiarchs on another table. To cut it short, the recent AoS games I've had and watched seemed to be so lethal you hardly had the chance to appreciate the models on the table. There wasn't much back and forth in a unit, but rather watching things dissapear once charged (unless they save stacked, which usually happened on models with high damage output), which can be tactical but I wouldn't say enjoyable for most. I doubt 40k is much different in this regard, but I think all of the options and better cover rules give people more of a sense of control. To add to this, though, I think Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics haven't gelled well with AoS's 'simple' gameplay. Unlike Malifaux, which has models directly built around their schemes and strategies, the GS and BT are tacked on to the AoS rule set. While they do add to strategy, they feel like busywork in a game that started out with a focus on pure casual play. I think they're a good idea in a way - making matched play it's own thing - but their implementation leaves me feeling more fussed when playing. The healthiest I've ever seen an AoS community was in a local GW at the beginning of AoS. People came in to play against strangers in drop in games where they'd make their own battleplans (or just run up and kill) with agreed upon lists, usually with a silly narrative focus. The casual atmosphere helped the game grow and retain players. That's not to say AoS should drop points and battletomes, but rather I think the rise in more competitive oriented rules has likely seen these casual players feel alienated. While it would have brought in competitive players, in my experience it was the casual players who gave life into the community. Another issue, which was more the beginning of AoS 2 than 3e itself, is that the narrative took a nosedive at the end of broken realms. Likely due to a rush, but the initial three Broken Realms books seemed to be pushing the narrative in a strong way, really shaking things up - indeed, they were considered much stronger books from a story perspective than Psychic Awakening as things actually happened. However the fourth book, Kragnos, was a big dissapointment for many. Whereas the ascension of Morathi and Belekor's boiling skies drew a lot of excitement, the Seige of Excellis was met with a resounding "meh" as little was achieved and plot points seemed covered over or forgotten about. It felt like it was written in a rush, and instead of triumphantly heralding 3e, it started on a damp squib. The releases have, for many, been an issue. While I only buy a specific set of armies, I think releases for any faction help make the game feel alive. I think there's almost a psychic scarring from the End Times - a knowledge in the back of the mind that AoS could be ended if it doesn't do well enough. Realistically, AoS is likely doing fine financially (though not compared to 40k), but the lack of releases turns attention to the idea of "what if AoS isn't doing as well anymore? Is this the new normal?". As mentioned by a few people, battletome quality has turned a few people away. I think most agree that the 3e Battletomes are better balanced and more thought out, but I think some people are dissapointed that some battletomes feel like small balance patches. It shouldn't be ignored that Battletomes are £30, so you can understand dissapointment when the changes can amount to minor tweaks to some problem abilities and warscrolls. From a balance and game health perspective, these sorts of changes make sense, but from a hype perspective they're just not that interesting - nor do they feel worth the money. I'm hoping this is just a lull, and I do think that many of the above are easily reversible (e.g. lack of releases), but it does seem AoS 3 has lost momentum and it's hurting the player base in some areas.

If people are curious, I'm at Warhammer World at the moment and I've had a look at the new Slaves to Darkness minis - they look fantastic, and the chosen are pretty big.

Looks fantastic - well done!

Very glad the forum is back! Seems loads happened while we were down

I do think the bottom image for Underworlds looks like dark elves - the classic 'skull' look of the executioners mixed with a new draconic crest. I do hope all of the Gloomspite rumours aren't just an Underworlds band...

The armoured feet on the stone statue head and spiked glove gripping sword are very Slaaneshi - though no gaurantee it will be. They look similar in design to the following pictures. GW do have a tendency to keep designs pure, and while Slaanesh does share some similaries with Dark Eldar, if this is AoS then I think I really only fully fits Slaanesh. Basically, Slaanesh likes spiked long gloves and standing on statues.

I think it's a case that the player's zeitgeist for gits is that they're the wacky faction that gets themselves crushed under their own weapons and aren't the brightest mushrooms in the cave. The actual lore could be much more horrific, but most people won't read that and will keep to a "meme-ified" version of the army that will self perpetuate in discussions online. Exact same thing with 40k Orks and Slaanesh.

I don't believe there was a Slaanesh mark, so I have a feeling they may be left out of this edition of Warcry.

I can definitely agree here. Like I said, I've enjoyed P2G, but that's mostly been the 'slow build' aspect of small games with lower power models leading into something bigger - compared to matched play, which (when I play it) tends to be very explosive and quick with super high damage. I do appreciate what they've done with P2G, but the book keeping is the primary mechanic, and said book keeping is often about lifting restrictions rather than making you stronger than baseline. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the vast majority of P2G players in my group have stopped tracking Glory Points. I'm quite tempted to write a full review of the system on a new thread, but all I'll say for now is that P2G 3e has missed the mark for some as it's more mechanical than matched play while offering a middling narrative experience. I'd love to see a rethink on the system - not a full redo, but more additions to make it more narrative friendly. On the other hand, I'd like them to fully redo Anvil of Apotheosis - the fact that it's nearly a copy of the 2e version, some factions/keywords are missing, and you often end up with either a 3+ save 2/2/-3/4 damage monster or something close to useless means it doesn't often get allowed. I think it may even work better as a system to attach upgrades/downgrades to an existing model, though something that complex would have to be a battletome section. I'd love them to release a full narrative book that addresses common issues with a lot of care and attention.

A new narrative event would be great to be honest - more Path to Glory stuff in general would be fantastic. I've found P2G to be much more enjoyable than matched play at the moment, though I do think fewer people are willing to give it a go. Even still, it's still pretty rough around the edges and could do with a bit of a look over with a few new scenarios and generic campaigns. That said, I bet that it's much less profitable than models and books so less likely to come out. More than that, keeping the setting moving is really important - AoS had great momentum in Broken Realms but that seems to have fallen off in 3rd.

Really hoping for Gitz and Khorne to get a new book - BoC would be nice too, but their White Dwarf was a lot kinder to them.

The Chaos Warshrine has an ability that triggers on anything with a "Slaanesh" keyword, and gives a 3D6 charge. So, Sigvald's Power of Vainglory lets him use the unmodified charge value as the attack characteristic. Modifiers, from what I can tell, are +/-s to the dice. So, if Sigvald rolls 3D6, does that become his attacks characteristic? Would be some nice synergy if so.

The Marks give the following: Undivided: Units get Eye of the Gods, and can reroll one dice (no unique). Command ability lets a unit add 1 to wound rolls against a hero or monster. Khorne: Add 1 to attacks if the unit made a charge that phase. Command ability: After a charge, on a 2+, an enemy unit within 1" suffers D3 mortal wounds. Tzeentch: 6+ spell ignore. Spell: CV 6, range 9. Teleport a Tzeentch unit out of 9" of an enemy. Nurgle: Subtract 1 from wound rolls for units that target Nurgle S2D. Command ability: Pick a unit in the combat phase, after it fights on a 3+ per enemy unit, the enemy unit suffers D3 MW. Slaanesh: Add 1 to run and charge. Command ability: Pick a unit in the Charge Phase, that unit can charge after running. I'd say all bar Tzeentch are pretty good. Nurgle is probably the strongest, though run and charge can give your army much needed reach. With the move phase command ability for a 6 to run, Slaanesh can give even the slow Chosen an average of 21" threat range- never mind how much Archaon can benefit.

They're definitely a lot more expensive, but I think I prefer that - it also gives marauders and cultists a place as the cheap chaff, rather than the empowered mortals also being mid. I like the idea of Chosen/Knights/Warriors being a force to be reckoned with, but very elite and expensive - so it's a good change for me!

The new Slaves to Darkness leaks make them seem very strong, though it remains to be seen exactly how strong. Some small bits (not all changes): - Archaon has 25 wounds and a 5+ ward (860) - Chosen have 3 wounds, 3+ save, and 2 damage (240) - Warriors have rend and a 3+ save (220) - Knights only have lances, but these are 4/3/-1/1 off a charge, and 4/3/-2/2 on a charge. They also have a 3+ save (230) - All of the tribes have been simplified as expected, and Host of the Everchosen allows varaguard and knights to rally on a 4+ There's a lot more than this, but in general, everything is a lot stronger but more expensive - which is how it should be for Slaves. I didn't like them being the cheap and cheerful conquerors of the realm (so long as their enemy didn't have a good save) - now every elite unit is a force to be reckoned with.

I think this was the case for a lot of people, in all honesty - it's a shared sentiment by many on this board and on FB groups. I do think the rules (alongside SBGL) botched the Slaanesh release and made it much less popular than it could have been. I've been thinking about the potential for us to get a new book, and to be honest, the more I consider it the more I don't want it to happen until they've definitely had enough time to not just do a "tidy up" style book. 3e's battletomes have in general been pretty good, but there have been many that have just been boring re-hashes. The worst thing that could happen to Slaanesh is that they double down on their current design - as you said, it doesn't play anywhere near as interesting as you'd hope it would. I'd like them to do a Nurgle style reboot that consists of chucking most of the old book out and starting from 0. Also, I think Khorne needs a book before us - I've not seen a book that has caused so many people to quit AoS.

I've not seen soft cover books for a while, so I don't think ours is being reprinted in soft cover. We can only hope it means a new battletome, though I would worry that if one came out so soon we'd have minimal changes (like Lumineth).

While I'd love to see some drops, I'm a little pessimistic in not expecting any. As we're just within the 45% limit, they may well treat us as "fine" despite the fact that a large portion of our book is much less than fine. Personally I'd love to see some reductions (and a new Slaangor scroll), but I think their focus will be elsewhere.

Having built the new Chaos Knight kit twice, I can confirm that the hornblower is definitely a 1:1 torso replica of the shown knight, meaning only the head and weapon hand have changed. Looking at the Knights and Warrios in the leaked battletome Images, I can see some 'duplicate' models and none that strike me as 100% new - I'm assuming knights and warriors will be the same as the push fit but with new arm options.

I agree. I think they used to be our best (or at least our better) units, but with Twinsouls going down so much it's hard to justify any other melee troop. I do think they could be solved with a points drop of between 30-50 - substantial, but inkeeping with their very poor defence and bravery compared to units like Bloodknights. I know it's no real good comparing the two as they're in different armies, but it's hard not to!

At least we're on the cusp of 'dire', as bad as it is to say, so we should at least get a glance over and hopefully a few points drops if nothing else. Even if they don't touch mortals again, if they're looking at internal balance then we do need the daemons to get substantial drops.

The Incarnate is very strong, mostly for these two reasons: 1) Simply put, it's got very good rend and damage, which we usually lack 2) For us specifically, as it can't die first turn, you can fling it in there and cause as much havoc as possible to every enemy there, racking up DP and letting your army advance mostly unscathed. Both Glutos and Synnessa will get the job done - Glutos is still one of the tankiest characters in AoS, and Synessa is just good support with a cannon.

Synessa is used pretty often, mostly alongside Archers to get as much damage as possible from range for an early DP lead. Keepers are considered not worth it, due to their points being far higher than their damage and tankiness would suggest and the fact they're very easy to summon. I only summon them and daemonettes, depending on what I need - either bodies on objectives or a second pile in/monstrous threat. My experience with chariots is very limited but from what I have seen, they're not great. As for all around lists, we do have a pretty good internal balance in our mortals - as in, you can take pretty much any mortal unit (besides Slaangors) and do okay with them. Daemons feel a bit forgotten with undercooked rules and way too high points. For an all around list, I'd recommend 10 Twinsouls as a hammer, three units of 11 Archers, two units of 5 Painbringers, Sigvald, and I personally like Glutos. This isn't the best list - for that you'd want an Incarnate - but it is a list that'd get you a decent amount of milage in a more casual meta. If your meta isn't casual, you may struggle with Slaanesh but can pull yourself up with Archers, Synessa, an Incarnate, and a few cheap units to screen - this probably won't be a particularly fun list, mind.