AoS General's Handbook finally announced !!

Yeah, my bad... Poorly phrased. I was thinking some kind of Deathrattle battletome, not their keywords. If we see one then I think they'd exclude TK related stuff - is what I should have said.

 

The issue with all these is that they're fairly arbitrary. The number limits are completly arbitrary, there's no real reason for 9 tzaangor's to be a problem but 8 to be fine. Similarly the list has very little shared attributes, there's heroes, behemoths, battalions, "normal" units. Some are expensive units, some cheap. The only somewhat shared attribute in your examples is that all of them, except for lord kroak, are "spam X"-lists. And evn then "spam" is relative as it varies from more than 1 to more than 20...

Taking the top X armies of the last Y tournaments will probably have the issue that it's far too small a dataset introducing massive biasses. Not to mention that I'd be surprised if even half the models that exist see any play there. Creating copious amounts of inaccuracy

On top of that, getting a new army is relativly difficult. Which means people will probably stick with whatever they have for quite a long time. Which means that for example everything in the starterset is going to be overrepsented if you just start tallying what people use at your local store.

Anyways, it'd be interesting if we had actual data. Might be worth it to make a topic and just start tallying what we have. We might be able to reach something vaguely statisticly significant if we're a bit Lucky

 

Alas, I feel you are correct.

I would be happy if GW went either way with TK. Either phase them out slowly or better yet, bring them back fully with model support.

 

And with beautiful circular bases.

 

At this point I can live with that. It doesn't take me too long to cut out a square/rectangular base from wood.

 

Ahahahah this is too good

 

Agreed! I had such a good laugh when I first saw that. @Mrs. NIGHTBRINGER loved it too!

 

You´re welcome. It´s amazing how much joy a low-tier photoshop can bring.

But seriously, you would make a fabulous Disney villain, @NIGHTBRINGER

 

I'll take that as a compliment! (I think)

 

Sorry if it has been explained already, but from what I understand the ally points let you bring stuff from your grand alliance without breaking your faction alliance as long as you stay in the ally point limit. So if I have 1000 points of seraphon I can bring x points of any order stuff and still use our spells and artefacts.

 

+1

Also, looking waaaaay back at the beginning of this thread, at the original post link, I am astounded to see so many skulls in the background scenery



That is a LOT of skulls. Would take a ton of money to make that much terrain if you were to buy it from the store...

 

When it comes to GW, that's just par for the course.

 

I wonder why there are so many space orks in a fantasy setting...

 

I really don't like that... wish they'd start pushing mono-armies a bit more. This way it gets far too easy to pick some extra stuff to fill a weak side of your army (e.g. stormforged have no wizards, let's bring a free wizard). Limitations are important....

At least I'd like to see a limit on which factions can be combined in this way. E.g. putting Collegiate arcane units in a seraphon army I'm more or less fine with since it's not as much filling a weakness as putting them in a stormforged army would be.

 

I agree too, I like playing an army for it's units not what the Grand Alliance has, it will be really strong for Bonesplitterz and Beastclaw Raiders, even Ironjawz because you can fill in range for the latter two and beefy units for Bonesplitterz. It is going to be very interesting for sure lol.

 

Ah but if you didn't have that it would leave some armies in a crap position like some of the death armies, Flesh Eaters only have something like 8 different units so they need a few different allegiances to build their army up. And since skaven got split up in factions that's necessary for them.

 

Armies do need to be properly fleshed out yes. And again, there's certain fctions for whom I wouldn't mind as much if they'd borrow from eachother. I just don't like it in general.

Also, as for using the same approach as pokemon for ranking stuff by how much it's used. We have a massive issue with different armies focussing on different aspects. For example an army that relies on heroes will have its heroes overrepresented. Which will end up making things biased again, even if you'd seperate it into various classes (e.g. don't compare battleline with heroes, only with other battleline) simply because even those classes aren't really equal across armies.

 

Quick question about the 400 points that we could use to get Order units: would those units benefit from the Seraphon Allegiance its new Abilities and possible spell lore as well?