Romes

The rules are a 4 page pamphlet, there are balancing mechanisms missing, I understand people want to figure out ways that the game will work, but we can't just write in ones that aren't there.

I'm totally lost on how you could interpret "destroy it's foe" as kill the number of models that they started with. That language isn't actually in that paragraph anywhere. And the language about models counting as killed for summoning is under the section about determining the minor victory.

I've played AoS. I've also played and watched games of 8th where summoned units were the reason people got tabled. As long as there is no point system, the balance issues of summoned units are sort of silly, it's about manipulating the triggering or not triggering a sudden death mechanic. You could always have just deployed them all. There are also multiple first turn wins in the game, so out of the box, it's all a bit silly to worry about whether you put a million models on the table of summon them in. The problem with summoned units is that if you did have or try to build a balance system, summoned units really screw it up. Balance systems are based on having a force of approximately strength X, determining the appropriate multiplier for summoning is not very feasible (how much is a herald of Tzeentch worth?), and it changes depending on models not on the board. Ryan, I like your review. I'm looking forward to playing my next game to see if maybe I was wrong in my first impression. I do agree with the above comment that removing the random turns may have significantly affected your enjoyment. That part broke my soul.

*add a unit of spearmen* *Calculate army value* *remove spearmen* *calculate army value* *repeat process with bowmen* I don't think this is real? Having a living document which balances units against each other is a great idea. It doesn't seem like something you could *really* protect, and it doesn't seem consistent with with GW's work on this so far. I'd be excited to learn more if it was, but I'd bet money it's not. Also - read the part about TOs. TOs are not GW employees, why would they care if you have a paid subscription? *Edit: I guess a lot of the details could be wrong/bad assumptions but the project could be real in some way? *fingers crossed!*

I get the distinct impression there wont be charge arcs. So if you go to the side of my dragon model you just make me closer. The issue I see is that my hydra is very long but not wide. End of turn 2 I turn it sideways. Next turn I turn it forward, move charge. Of course still haven't seen the game yada yada, but measure to the model always feels shenanigantastic. Some will say "well don't play that way", I'd say if you're taking the time to design a brand new game, don't allow for it. We'll see when we actually have the full rules I guess. =)

Right now the cynical part of me thinks the decision was made purely to try to lessen the pain for fantasy players to convince them to keep buying, "look, you don't have to re-base". This combined with the idea that they're not worried about the in game effect. I can't see an in-game advantage of adding that ambiguity. On the plus side, since it's a living rule set, this could always be changed 6 months from now once people have either bought in or dropped off. So, you leave it as "to the model" for the base transition period, and then change the rule. *EDIT I think the other way to think about it is it emphasizes the "player choice" in basing, because basing doesn't affect the game. Theoretically this would encourage creative artistic basing.

I haven't seen any screenshots of the no points on warscrolls confirmed. Just no points on the units inn the starter. I think people are extrapolating that from the starter box. Someone else mentioned that Dark Vengeance didn't have point totals either.

At 2 weeks away from the pre-release my cat starts to meow stat lines.

They're all rumors until there are pictures.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/06/an-introduction-to-age-of-sigmar.html New Rumor set, looks way more like 8th + skirmish

On the witches - unit fillers! I have 2 40x40 unit fillers in my 28 model witch elf unit (with a cauldron), because of how badly they rank up, I would guess most people do. (with the cauldron that's 4 ranks) Broader point - I think you guys both have legitimate points. GW may be sub-par at certain things (*cough* communication, tournament support, balance), but they are not to blind to realize that A: they need a lower entry point to make the game more approachable to new people B: the people deeply addicted to plastic crack don't stop buying when their army is full. My theory is you will see one overall system that is designed specifically to scale up with the different size tiers having some of their own rules. It needs to be easy for players to move between one size and another so that every warband can become a legion and every legion owner can dip into a new warband.

I smiled at that. =)

Winner! The only casting comes from the precious, precious warlocks.* *Note there's just not one in the list, it does add up to 2500, all the models are there. The confusing part of the cauldron visual is that I had the BSB standing on the cauldron because her current basing scheme looks better there, she actually chills in the unit as a separate character in the witches. *edit: and the cauldron bound spell, of course. **edit edit: come say hi at the event and I'll buy you a beer!

>.<

This is a nice resource link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fhiziwo59n26emh/mqPQVchtlB

Nice! Now we need to find out if it's a new starter or a different game, Thanks for posting.

I'll buy a beer for whoever figures it out from the full army pic.

Bad lighting picture, favorite model.

Dragon needs some base work and cleanup.

Dragon, Manticore, Hydra =) The where's waldo is that there is something major missing. Also, thanks!