Age of Sigmar General AOS

>Duardin in September

oooooh fuck

my body(beard) is ready, hoping for lots of AoS bullshit applied to those manlet bastards.

why the fuck is destruction so overpowered holy shit

Hey guys, going to be doing my Freeguilders in Stirland colours, Green and Yellow.

I just don't know what to do with the standard. My freehand sucks, and I have no idea how to make them look more interesting than just a quadrisection without making it look like shit.

Any help?

Get ready for jetpacks, sci fi rayguns and metal diving suit armour!

Yellow and green are complimentary. Use either purple or red and blue (for a less aggressive contrast which you might want if you're using more muted main colours) as a colour for your icon. The quartered green and yellow field should look nice but you want something to make the standard stick out a bit. I'd recommend a nice contrast. Sleepy af, sorry if this makes no sense.

On a sleepy af tangent you can use contrasts as shades as well, that is to say getting a tonal contrast as well as a value (brightness) contrast. For example washing green with red or yellow with purple. You only generally want to glaze for this unless you're doing a more cartoonish composition.

Sorry, didn't see the freehand sucking bit. You can simply use micron pens and such to draw it on if you lack confidence or paint over a transfer with your desired colours. A simple, blocky design like a hammer, sword or tower might be easier.

You will want to practice on a piece of paper a few times before doing the banner proper. Remember to brace your wrists together and have your elbows firmly on your desk when doing fine details.

Best of luck friend, it's really not as hard as it looks. Simply try to be neat, don't have to use loads of tiny lines and fiddly stuff to get a nice result.

Thanks for the advice, I'll look into using micron pens, and get some practice in. I don't have the brush control yet to get it right with paint.

Didn't know that shading with contrasts thing either, so that was cool too. Thanks again.

dot those armys that got battletomes.

did a lot change in regards to the orginal warscrolls?

i want to make a gnoblar army led by the minimum amount of ogres but i dont know if thats still viable in the future?

(i dont think ogors will have to wait long right ?)

In an incredibly shit situation and I need to distract myself. Can you guys tell me a cool story? Of a game you had or a cool opponent or your fave hero maybe. Stuck away from my paints and minis and don't want to read about people dying but I'm on an AoS kick at the moment. I'll pay you back in painting tips or advice for lists/narrative.

No worries man, please post them up on here when you're done. Shit or amazing we need more content that's not WAAC nonsense.

Anybody got more questions? I'm a decent painter and need to distract myself.

The app is updated as the scrolls are, just delete and re download them. Same should go for the GW site. Why not just run some gitmob guys converted out of gnoblars? If you want grots there's lots of choices there. Is ita a key word thing ?

Someone yesterday went over that.

Basically the whole problem is that Destruction is based on factions that play high damage and survivability, but slow and low model count armies. Their slowness meant they had the harder time initiating leading to them being easier to outmaneuver and usually being initially charged instead of charging themselves. Their lower model count meant that losing a unit or even a few models from a unit would greatly reduce the overall power or the army, eggs in one basket thinking.

In AoS, because models have ranges for their combat attacks, pile in is relevant, and battleshocks are effected by sheer number of removed models, the game actually favors smaller elite units due to their flexibility and ability to apply the maximum amount of damage since its easier to pile in 6 Ogres instead of 20 Blood Warriors and have them able to swing. So the low model count per unit is actually a good thing now, making that drawback, built into them on a mechanical level, pointless or even a net benefit.

The other draw back, their slow movement, is almost immediately negated by the Alliance Destruction rule. The one where every unit within 6 inches of the general moves d6 in the hero phase. Suddenly Ironjaw Brutes, normally rocking a slowass move 4 are now looking at 7-8 move on average rolls over the course of the hero and movement phase, not only negating the disadvantage but actually making Destruction's base units FASTER then their competition in most cases. So that one rule fucked up their biggest disadvantage. Just take a Warboss on a mawcrusher or an Ogre on a Stonehorn so they can keep up with the rest of their units and build the rest of the army around them in a wreaking ball style strategy and watch them crash right into the opponent.

So Destruction gets the bonus's of being the "damage faction" with almost none of their drawbacks mattering in the grand scheme of things. Perfect recipe for a broken faction.

Trolls/Troggoths are cool.

that is all

Also consider the fact that destruction lately has got 3 new battletomes, I think that when all the other faction will get their battletomes the game will be a little more balanced

I find all this moot because I am still able to pin people down as Duardin and grind them to dust and the new steamhead will probably double that.

>>GW explicitly explains they know they don't write balanced rules with point and even explains this in the Generals handbook

I want an actual source to this. Not the "If you want to you can change stuff" shit they mention in every book for every game since 2004, remember... GW has ALWAYS said you can change things and not follow the strict rules or points, for 40k, Fantasy, and the LOTR lines. AoS isn't some messiah or enlightened prophet on doing whatever shit you want in the war gaming world, not even close. GW just didn't give players a basis of sorta-fairness from the get go so people assume the game was only designed for imagination land, instead of something with the basis for the basic "pick up and play" model that is the most popular through two players saying "XXXX point game?" and working around that agreement.

I want to read them say and acknowledge, officially, that they know they don't write balanced rules with the points costs they presented in the General's Handbook. I want to read these explanations.

If its true that would be the most honest and open statement I've ever seen from GW in years, if that is false then this is just a bad meme that deserves to die for fucking up 2 threads already.

I actually played a game against Destruction the other day. My new Stormcast against Beastriders. He ran 3 Stonehorns of various types, 2 units of Mournfang, and a Skal. I had 33 models across 12 units to his 12 in 8.

At the end of the game I was down to 5 models and he had a Frostlord on Stonehorn left. Even with teleporting the Retributors and using Skyborne Slayers to spread my forces out, I was reduced to the units I was basically hiding, and honestly don't know if I could have finished off his dude. That Frostlord just deletes a unit per turn, no question. Absolutely brutal, if I had played a foot list that all started on the board I would have been tabled 100%

First to point out that 20p over or under ain't cheating.
Also, a unit don't block LoS by default. You have to play Warmahordes for that sort of game.

>First to point out that 20p over or under ain't cheating
>Hey user i was only 20k under on my tax returns, that ok?"
>no you retard
Agreed points limit is the be all and end all, the only acceptable over limit, if anything, is 1 point

Well, if 30+ years of Warhammer and 40k ain't enough to prove my point, Ill reference to the actual release of AoS, where GW says "screw points, you go figure balance out!".

Apart from this, in the actual batrep in the actual fucking Generals Handbook, they even show how its ok not to take points to seriously, by playing a game where one side is a bit over, and one side is a bit below. Just to give retards like the migrating flood of 40kids a reference that the points themselves ain't written in stone.

>"As they provide an excellent framework for pick-up games as well"
>"Provide an excellent framework for"
>"Excellent framework"
>"Framework....."

Just on the top of my head.

Hey, look, its that retarded 40kid again!

This is why Open play is shit - you can't trust retards to not sneak shit in
>hurr it's just 20 point bro
>so what if it allows me another whole unit
:^)

I don't think there's anything wrong with being 20p over if it's unavoidable... however...

>user, I'm at 2020, the lowest points I can remove would knock me down to 1950
That's fine!

>user, I'm at 2000 but I just want to give this guy a 20 point magic item
Woah now...

Knowing Age of Sigmar your not going to get real sources user, your going to get a bunch of vague shit that both sides proclaim support their point of view.

Its stupidly simple, if you and your opponent agree to a points value, you build your list as you wish. If going 20-50 points over makes a difference in your eyes then ask your opponent if its ok to either just take the extra points. If they say yes, there you go! Hell most of the time I would love to say yes as the Triumph table abilities are actually pretty bonkers and game changing with my Varanguard, but that is just me... Or you offer to raise the points value of the game slightly. At my store we play and build lists of usually 1000, 1500, and 2000 but when I play my Varanguard list of 9 and a Gaunt Summoner. I always ask for an exception of the norm and to play 1250pts since the difference meant a third of my models. I never get turned down. Having to try to squeeze shit into lists right at the last minute is simply a person's own fault. Find out the common point values at your shop and figure your shit out before game night. They should have asked for more points in the beginning as they knew it would take more points to work with if they did their damn homework before.

However, should the opponent say NO then you don't really have a leg to stand on. You agreed on a points value and that is what your opponent expected. Either tone down the list and make it work or walk away and find another opponent, maybe one more forgiving or accepting.

Your opponent is entitled to play a game they deem fair and fun, as are you. If their opinion on fair is slightly different from yours then you talk things out and if it doesn't work then you don't play.

That is all... simple shit. There is no rule saying that you are allowed to force people to allow you anything. There is no rule of "over or under 50" or any shit like that. You agree or compromise and play, or disagree and not play.

What would be a good sized round base for the soul grinder? The square is 100x150mm with a little spare room around the sides, so would a 120mm oval or a 130mm round one work?

I've tried googling for a while, but nothing definitive has come up.

Well, heres an excellent example on how it should work. As I stated, its a "how to play fair for dummies", not a blood pact.

In a game where just about anything goes in by the 100´s in points scale, there are bound to be some minor step-overs/unders. Personally I think "only painted and based" works just as well as a system. Forces all the lazy 40kids that just migrated to actually do something before they deploy their new army´o the month. Most of those tards just play all grey armies anyway (as they always tend to get the new hotness, and cant bother to paint 2500p 40k every month).

Does anyone know what base size the Treelords were on before they were rebased?

>My General's Handbook just arrived
>Read the battlereport at page 116
>Players decide for 2000 points
>Stormcast player brings 2040
In the freaking General's Handbook

But there aren't any 20 point magic items. Artifacts don't cost anything. The only things that have point values are units and battalions. The lowest points value for a unit is 30 points for 6 Giant Rats. There are two battalions that cost 20 points, the Royal Morband, and the Jorlbad. Of course, if one player has less than the other, they get to use the triumph table, giving them a buff to their army.

This, 100%. I'm fairly certain it's just salty piss kickers at this stage though.

Is this list viable at all ? All units are marked by tzeentch. It's for an upcoming tourney, which is totally not my style but I just want to meet people. Don't usually play competitively, could someone have a look at it for us ?
Lord on daemonic mount - 140

Chaos Sorceror lord - 140

10 warriors - 180
-halberds & shields
10 pink horrors - 140

2 chaos chariots - 160

5 chaos knights - 200

2 chaos familiars - 40

Also have: 1 gorebeast & 1 normal chariot, herald of tzeentch, blue scribes, lord on disc, 3 screamers & an exalted flamer.

>user, I'm at 2020, the lowest points I can remove would knock me down to 1950
>That's fine!

Literally me in the last thread and I got eaten alive.

2020 or 1940 is all I can make.

"Talk to your opponent first and agree a compromise"

Case closed.

Are you telling me that Sigmar won't come and smash our skulls with Ghal Maraz if we go over the point limit?

He will, but he's not Santa, he can't deal with all the rules breakers in one night.

Here's the dissonance I think:

>Is it ok to show up to a random game or event over points and assume it's ok?
No

>If I'm over but my opponent says it's alright and we agree before the game starts is it kosher?
Yes of course.

You can never assume your opponent will see it your way, or be understanding enough to let you play it out. People probably read your post and assumed you were planning on just walking into a FLGS 20 points over and assuming it was ok. That's not acceptable to assume at face value, but it can be with a bit of discussion.

General's handbook is a lazy half assed points system that cares not for petty things like "upgrades" or "What if I want to take this unit in anything other than multiples of ten dudes".

So yeah, don't use it as a hard cap, just as a vague hint your armies are roughly the same "size" where size is a ballpark trying to balance out model count and model quality.

The dude just gave an example, how slow are you?

What he means is, if you set out for a 2k game, you end up at 1980, you don't take another 160p model "just to ad up", you stop instead, as you are clearly in the ballpark of a 2k game to begin with.

What people must understand is that AoS is still, with or without the Generals Handbook, a "friendly game" best enjoyed with close friends. Where you forge a narrative and so on. But retards like all the migrating 40k fans that just arrived seriously believe the points are "fair" and that its just like 40k, written in stone, when in truth its not! (Just try to actually read the intro for matched play for crying out loud! Anyone not getting that should just get the fuck out!).

>30 years of blablabla...
>But the "frameword" saying...
>But at release...

Every GW rule book says they provide an excellent framework, starting point, or basis for games. This from GW is common as fuck. None of that is what I'm asking for. I want the explanation that they didn't intend balanced rules with points that the walnut in last thread said.

>Ill reference to the actual release of AoS, where GW says "screw points, you go figure balance out!".
Source please for that statement? That exact saying or are you going to actually do anything but run your mouth.

Besides that nonsense it important to note that what they did at release doesn't matter at all in this scenario. GW have separated open, without points, play from matched play. If you want to say they wanted us to "screw points" at release then CLEARLY its safe to assume they had a change of heart and now encourage their points system.

>But the battle report...
Shows a scenario where they obviously allowed the Stormcast player to go over. None of that makes a RULE forcing your opponent to have to allow you to take extra points every time as well.

I just want real sources to the crazy shit, since that usually shuts up the morons that just shout ever 5 minutes.

The moral dilemma is subjective as fuck.

This guy hit it right on the money

>Tzeentch in October

I've heard this meme before, last year when everyone was saying Tzeentch was November.

75x50mm rectangle I think

pokemon.com/us/play-pokemon/pokemon-events/leagues/2253011/

don't use a base, you measure from model to model and in 40k you measure to the model because it's the hull.

In short, don't use a base for the soul grinder.

Isn't that kinda tiny?

Nope that wasn't me (the 40k kid who doesn't like space and plays brets)

Play points properly or stick to open thanks

25mm square -> 40mm round

This is a joke pdf right?

games-workshop.com/en-US/Citadel-170x105mm-Oval-Base

LOL Wrong LInk

play age of sigmar properly or stick to warmachine thanks

I couldn't find anything else either. I have been using the bases that GW puts the models on. That being said I use this for bases they haven't released yet. Unless you have something better?

I want to give it a scenic base to go with the rest of my army.

You make a fair point. You should never assume anything. But that swings both ways.

If the rules explicitly says, you can chose to play with points, or you can count wounds, or just make up your own silly rules if you want, as it actually does in the Generals handbook. You can also safely assume that you in fact cant assume anything other than what you and your opponent agree upon, and not even then I'm afraid.

Also those are Heros. They seem to put all Heros on 40mm or larger. I like it.

Ignore the hero side entirely, just fucking pretend it doesn't exist, better year, open mspaint and block all that shit out.

Also feel free to put 40x40 square onto 40mm round

This!

If players cant even read and understand the section of matched play, they should get out. Its a "play fair for dummies" at best, but unfortunately enough, the average migrant from 40k is to stupid to understand even this.

AoS models are packaged with bases too large for the model to subtly discourage using them for ranked games. Nearly everything which was on a 25 square is now on a 32 round.

here you go famalamadingdong

Thanks thats is the same thing only smaller.

>if players can't read and understand that agreeing on a limit then going over that limit so your army is stronger than it should be is cheating then they need to stick to open play

yeah but I'm saying, don't put a fucking beastlord on a 40mm round, he's way too small and it would look stupid

So my gaming store is going to have a six turn 3v3v3 this weekend led by our local mega battle GM. The struggle is between 3 Dwarf players defending their ancestor's tombs ( holding a secret 3 of the 5 objectives told to them at the start of the game), Death seeking the bones of an ancient dwarf lord to create a dwarven Wight King and a new undead kingdom in the underdeep (cast some GM made spell while holding one of the secret objectives revealed turn 3) and Chaos seeking to kill the High Lich of Nagash and the current Warden Prince (basically head hunting).

The board is going to be an underground themed board, so flying units cannot cross walls and lose 3 inches on their move due to being cramped in the tunnels.

Each player brings 1000pts with force org alterations made by the GM based on faction:

Dwarven players have to take 1 extra battleline, but get booby traps and can use trap doors to navigate the battlefield. One player must reveal their General as the Warden Prince on turn 2

Undead get a free 15 man Skeleton unit per player, that when completely destroyed gets back up, but can never be near the objectives, the players deploy far away from each other and one player must reveal a wizard the Grand General to represent the High Lich on turn 2.

Chaos' alteration is only one battleline required per player, and only two Behemoth choices between all three players. We also learn the Dwarves secret objectives turn 2 should we make our grand general a leader choice of Tzeentch.

My teammates are bloodbound and nurgle.

Because I'm taking the Tzeentch leader and the table has a few realm gates I'm taking:

Gaunt Summoner: 140
3 Varanguard: 360
The rest is summon points:500

My friends have almost every chaos demon unit imaginable and I can free summon from the realm gates. I normally only play mortals and don't have experience with deamon units.

What are some cool units to summon this weekend in the 500pt range. I should be able to get 2 units at least.

...

>gw reboots fantasy, gets rid of core requirements
>pushes for lower model count armies
>removes army books so you can use whatever models you want
>get rid of points too, they just made some models never sell

>community backlash

>players who never buy models are outraged
>people burning unpainted models
>people with full mantic armies outraged warhammer doesn't exist

>gw gets some community members to make a point system
>active players who purchase models
>these players played in every tournament last year, without points
>point system ends up being a pretty good adaptation of a couple different community comp systems
>even wound based equalization mirrors a lot of the point values

>40k players "make the switch"
>rampant autism
>arguing about 20 points or 40 points

You know that wargames are supposed to be fun, right? Right?

>This guy hasn't even red the intro for matched play

Nice to let us know. Next time, try arguing about something you know about.

Not sure whether this sounds cool af or tedious af

looking at this you might need the giant dinnerplate that is the 160 given how the 170 oval pinches the corner really hard.

The giant-spider-demon has six legs

Don't put it on a base, just make a display board that matches your scenic bases

You know that literally no other war/board game tolerates going over points, right?

I know that most wargames which are worth playing don't have points.

You dumb fucking retard baby. You think GW spawned shit is the end all and be all of wargaming? Come back to me when you know what a waterloo square is you paste eater

haha, you nailed it sir!
The problem isn't the points system, its the 40k autistic players that cant understand that this is a reference system, and that GW, on black and white, don't write this seriously. Also that the core element of this game is to have fun with the whole of the hobby, not only sitting in moms basement jerking of to pre-written netlist´o the month.

>You know wargames are supposed to be fun, right? Right?

Then explain why you need to houserule out a randomised turn order rule the core document tossed in for no visible reason before the game can even pretend to be playable.

Or do you laugh and clap your hands like a trained seal when your opponent's entire army acts twice? "Oh, what fun! I was worried that player skill might have entered into this and interrupted the fun!"

Yeah, and wars in real life have point values too! To keep things fair.

You know that literally no other war/board game launches without a points system right?
You seem to be lost friend, go home to 40k/warmahordes.

Flamers & 2x3 screamers.
Herald, 10 horrors, 3 screamers, exalted flamer
3x burning chariots
Lord of change, 10 horrors, exalted flamer.

I'd just summon them in a backfield to shoot backbone units and draw forces away from critical areas of the field.

Random turn order is in many historical wargames, so no, I'm not bothered by DICE affecting my DICE GAME.

You know that fantasy wargames spawned after the models right? Like they were just barebone rules because children wanted to see their toys fight one another.

Define "playing Age of Sigmar properly"?

Is there only one version of the various ways to play that is the "correct" one?

Is the Matched play rules, written and released by GW itself NOT the correct way to play even though GW clearly thinks it is?

Or is this just blind blathering?

Because real wars are for fun, right?

>I'm not bothered by DICE affecting my DICE GAME.

Games workshop rules writer detected.

Did you design the psychic phase?

Fantasy players loved the magic phase, so we gave it to 40k to shake it up.

Next we're giving 40k the age of sigmar treatment.

2 wound marines, 5 for 200 points

>Thinking points solves the problem
>glances over at 40k....

You need to get back on the meds dude... Points don't make a game fair (just look at warmahordes mk3), and it doesn't necessarily make it more fun.
If you play a tard that brings everything he´s got, and claims that is fair. If you play the idiot who only brings big monsters, or an all elite army. Then yes, sure, the matched play are a godly gift, to show this asshole he was way out of line (a "to play fair for dummies" so to speak). But if you are an average Joe thats not a complete tool, anyone with half a brain can see that the points system is just a reference system, provided by GW for players like Bob who cant function right without anyone holding his hand.

there are no miniature games without points you fucktard

Don't even go there, it's plain disrespectful to soldiers. This is a game for fun. End of story.

If you hate randomisation, why not play chess or something ? Did you think a game with a model that lets you have an extra turn if you too 3 6s would be a pure logic challenge and not focused on drama and fun stories?

40k had a psychic phase until they got rid of it in 3rd

>All crying children, unable to comprehend that rules matter when playing games
>But my houserule is more important that the actual rules

Cry more faggots.

>Playing a game mode where there are set team limits
>Trying to add more dudes on your team then the limit literally allows
>By definition cheating
>Getting mad that people call that bullshit

Fuck that shit. The game is fun when players follow the rules, not break them and then call autism when someone points out they are cheating.

>there are no wargames without points

>HG Wells intensifies

>I'm out of arguments
>I know I'm wrong
>Time to start cherry picking and look for typos, now I'm sure to win this fight!

You know your the cancer to this community right?

Did you quote the wrong post? Because mine was about holding AoS as a pinnacle of putting fun first when it has -fucking random turn order-

Getting consecutive turns in the early game lets you gain board control and thin down your opponent if you have even a quarter of a brain, giving a near-unassailable tactical advantage. Randomly.

Yeah that's why I play a game with wizards and dragons to simulate real wars

Historicals had no points for decades before GW was a thing. A century before that they were used as a training simulator for various militaries in scenarios based on battles fought-not hypothetical symmetrical deathmatches. You're also discounting AoS which was released without points.

>Don't even go there, it's plain disrespectful to soldiers. This is a game for fun. End of story.

>Unbalanced games suck
>Real war isn't balanced
>Real war isn't fun
>Shit he got me better hide behind traumatised veterans, that'll make me unassailable!

Wow, you're a piece of work, aren't you?

Don't forget that D&D came from Chainmail, the original fantasy war game that also had no points

>Getting consecutive turns in the early game lets you gain board control and thin down your opponent if you have even a quarter of a brain, giving a near-unassailable tactical advantage. Randomly.

>sometimes orders in real wars are cocked up, giving the other side a tactical advantage

boo-hoo

go play chess if you want strategy that isn't affected by dice

oh wait you're too stupid to play chess

>anyone with half a brain can see that the points system is just a reference system, provided by GW for players like Bob who cant function right without anyone holding his hand.

Has GW openly called it a reference system??? I seemed to have missed that part. Unless its just you classifying anything you don't like as optional... in which case houserules please go...

Actually there are a number of historical games that don't have points.