Age of sigmar

[Sception]

Note that pretty much every summoning spell requires 9" between the summoned unit and any enemy units. As such, you're not going to be pulling the old-style instant speed bumps/redrectors business, and even summoning screens is not likely to be a thing as by the time you lose whatever screen you started with, the enemy will be too close to summon more units between yours and theirs. Especially considering that you can't move the summoned unit during the following movement phase, so if you summon right in front f your units, then you'll end up getting in your own way.

 

[Menkeroth]

 

[najo]

NBD, we all make mistakes. Although I find it interesting that people are trying to see things in very negative lights. Granted you @Malisteen at least have your head on straight enough not to endorse the crazy "no base matters" shenanigans, which are truly gross. But honestly, while the rules are very light, it's not like they are a screen door on a boat. They work fairly well, and while it's nowhere near what we had before, I am kinda a fan of the new game, and have thus-far yet to find any game-breakingly bad rules. Besides summoning being kind of ridiculous. My best suggestion for that is at low "points" battles to just not follow the 18" range on dispel, so you at least always have a chance to stop the summon. But in bigger games I don't feel like it's too big of a problem, maybe.. I'd have to play a large battle to see myself.

We need to play the hell out of the game before we can fully decide if summoning is broken. I had a game where my zombies were destroyed so quickly, that if I summoned a bunch more it wouldn't have been unbalanced. Trying to summon things like terrorgiests could just waste your spell for that turn since you need a 10. Finally, the 18" range on unbinding makes wizards have to play a tactical game. Which is good.

 

[najo]

The problem is when you face Irondrakes, khemri archers or whatever that can fire two shots a turn your screen is removed rather quickly.

I don't think the implementation of a LOS rule would render heroes largely immune to shooting as it's still a 50/50 chance. AoS cannons can reroll to hit with an engineer, fire twice and do D6 wounds. characters need better protection.

It would hurt the tactical movement of the game, allowing characters to put themselves out front more, using range attacks and spearheading charges with a much reduced risk. Part of the game is screening heroes from threats as they move around the units.

As for units laying waste to units with mass shooting. They would just shoot away the unit anyways, so the character would lose look out sir. Perhaps running two units as screens is better. Like the combined arms strategy I mentioned before.

 

[Infernal Skull]

Keep in mind, that if you're summoning stuff, and the enemy is churning through it, they are racking up kills if it comes down to a percentage victory condition.

Summoned models don't add to your army's starting size, but DO count toward number of models killed. For example:

If you have a starting army of 50 models, and over the course of the game summon 50 more... If the enemy kills every summoned model (50 kills) he has killed 100% of your army's starting number of models. If the enemy started with 60 models, and hasn't summoned anything, and you've killed 59 of his models, that's only about 98% of his army. So you'll lose.

Make sure you table him and don't run out of time.

 

[Sception]

Najo, characters are generally taller and more elaborate than regular dudes, which makes them impossible to screen. A thousand hunched over ghouls wouldn't prevent your opponent from picking out your upright vampire standing behind them. I doubt that any number of skeletons would manage, either. How many glade guard does it take to screen one of those spellsingers that are all floaty way up in the air? how many zombies would it take to screen the vampire with that giant bat wing above his head?

Heroes in warhammer in general are just taller than regular guys, so you really can't claim that true line of sight is going to protect them, not without extreme modelling for advantage like zombies on giant rocks or the like, and that's not a direction we want the game to go in, is it?


I mean, I'm not advocating we house rule this in immediately, before the game has had time to sink in as is, but I suspect this is a problem that is going to become more, not less, acute with time, and it should definitely be on a list of issues to be keeping an eye out for.

 

[Tawg]

@Malisteen, yeah but if all your worried about is screening your hero from shooting, the 9" summon restriction shouldn't be too big of an issue for that. Otherwise, if you are failing to be able to summon due to that rule, then you very well are probably in range to charge anyways, which is a better form of cover.

As far as True Sight goes and blocking models, that's entirely true, especially when people model their units to be very cool and imposing looking. It will be interesting if every army starts to move towards bigger models (Like I have heard rumors that GW would be inclined to do), because that will change how things work out. But otherwise units like Crypt Horrors or what have you, that can soak the damage and more or less form a literal wall would work. You could also use unit banners to block LoS, although that is borderline cheesy like the whole modeling to your advantage goes. Although it also makes sense that if he was out of sight behind a banner you couldn't shoot him.. it would just be way too hard to prove without a doubt he was hidden.

True line of sight is problematic in my opinion, because it's usually the case that you should assume sight is there. I forget what system, I think Malafaux, but they use LoS as one of three steps, either you can clearly NOT see them, CAN clearly see them, and everything in between is simply one grouping that gives a flat penalty to hit. So you don't have to argue if things are blocked enough to provide cover, or if they can just barely see them. That would be the easiest way to play this, just view the situations from the most extreme perspective, and more than likely that means you can see your target.

But I still am not sure if this "Shooting" issue is.. truly even an issue. I am quite possibly one of the few people I know who does not disagree with the notion of ranged combat within 3". It's fairly obvious it is suppose to be allowed by the rules, and I feel like everyone's reservations are simply a hold-over from what we have come to expect from this and other games.

True, in real life, shooting at a target once they have closed the range to less than arms length is nearly impossible, but the game is more abstract than that, and I think we can assume fights are not units simply standing still slugging it out, but a roiling combat that can't properly be represented by our physical models. And with that, I feel you can assume that the shooting units can break off just enough to snap shots off between the fierce clash of melees. Not that it matters, no one is arguing about this. I just would rather play the game as they have it written before I assume that the shooting "while in combat" is too good or illogical.

 

[Sception]

I'm not advocating any house rules yet, apart from counting bases as part of a model because stacking painted minis on top of each other is ridiculous. There are, I feel, several potential issues the big three I'm currently side eyeing being

summoning (especially of wizards that can then summon more, or with stacking casting bonuses)

shooting even into and out of combat

being able to pick out heroes without penalty at range


But while I'm skeptical of these issues in particular, the game has not been out long enough for me or really anyone to make definitive statements of how serious these problems are, or necessarily the extent to which they are problems at all, let alone what should be done about them if they are.

They're issues that should be watched, and maybe specifically tested around. To what extent can they be exploited to break the game? To what extent do they damage games even without the intent to exploit them? Again, questions to ask, not answers to be had yet, especially as I have yet to play in, watch, or see described online a game of AoS where somebody didn't get some rule wrong in some important way. If the rules are so new that the community clearly doesn't even understand them yet, then they're obviously too new to be changing with arbitrary house rules.



Except for the bases thing. I'm sorry, but the bases thing is ridiculous, and doesn't even achieve the aim of preventing bases from influencing the game, since they still affect how close models can get to each other, even if they are standing on each others' bases.

 

[Tawg]

@Malisteen Concurred.

Pretty much everything you said is about as legit as I could think of; I really wish I had more time, or perhaps available opponents, to test the game with a good number of matches.

In my personal opinion, I feel that the issue with the summoning becomes lessened once you reach for higher "model count" games. In that case they should prove to be a lesser boon, but still potentially useful. In small games, summoning full units on reliable 4-6+ (More than likely on a bell curve) is too big, since no unit is greatly worse than others to the extent they use to be; The only real problem I have with the summoning on lower point matches though, is the lack of ability to dispel freely. Having your opponent hide and summon out of your range to dispel is the biggest issue I see happening, or even perhaps going into a lower points game and not bringing a wizard to dispel at all. But that is on the borderline of balancing your armies against each other, and I know that's a touchy topic for most people right now.

The bases issue certainly doesn't solve much of anything, truly. It's a wonder that GW wasn't able to simply poll the audience on that one, because (Ignoring people who are upset at how changed the game is) anyone could have told them the obvious flaws that crop up with that "solution". Plus I feel like they didn't even achieve the goal they originally had, which was to calm people's nerves that they'd be able to continue playing with their models. Most people are either drastically opposed to AoS such that the bases issue is the least of their worries, or they are willing to give it a go, and wouldn't be concerned with the square vs round issue anyways.

Hell, I know my friend played his Deamons army in 40k and fantasy, so they just had square bases. Played fine then, didn't cause us issues in 40k matches. But c'est la vie, GW will GW and think terribly misguided thoughts. I would like for them to update the rules to a palatable solution that isn't as obnoxious though, what with their living rules and promising to keep up on that whole deal. I really wish they would change the 1"/2"/3" combat/weapon range thing, but considering they are attempted to market that stupid measuring tool (At a price anyone would say no to), I know they won't be changing that any time soon. Unless those things seriously sell like zero. God I hope.

 

[najo]

Najo, characters are generally taller and more elaborate than regular dudes, which makes them impossible to screen. A thousand hunched over ghouls wouldn't prevent your opponent from picking out your upright vampire standing behind them. I doubt that any number of skeletons would manage, either. How many glade guard does it take to screen one of those spellsingers that are all floaty way up in the air? how many zombies would it take to screen the vampire with that giant bat wing above his head?

Heroes in warhammer in general are just taller than regular guys, so you really can't claim that true line of sight is going to protect them, not without extreme modelling for advantage like zombies on giant rocks or the like, and that's not a direction we want the game to go in, is it?


I mean, I'm not advocating we house rule this in immediately, before the game has had time to sink in as is, but I suspect this is a problem that is going to become more, not less, acute with time, and it should definitely be on a list of issues to be keeping an eye out for.

Yeah, that is true. Shooters going after characters will end up with combat units on them fairly quickly. You could screen with monstrous infantry too. I still think playing lots of games before changing rules is the best course, its to early to understand the balance and interactions of all the game's components. Just discovered some more things today, which I plan to share in a video or post when I get a chance to put it together. This game keeps surprising me.

 

[Sception]

I still think playing lots of games before changing rules is the best course, its to early to understand the balance and interactions of all the game's components.

This I absolutely agree with.

 

[El Syf]

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB...hTerm=&sorting=phl&categoryId=cat440002a-flat
The descriptions of all the old races have been updated.
Bretonia and the empire share theirs and live in sigmaron. Read a few others, Nagash seems very much a part of the new setting mentioned in the VC and TK description. Interestingly vampires are not mentioned once in the VC bit...

 

[Menkeroth]

Aye, that's very interesting. In this regard it's hard to predict where it will be going and which fluff will be there for the old races since their model range is yet intact. I hope they will not eradicate any of the old factions.

 

[Banat]

Keep in mind, that if you're summoning stuff, and the enemy is churning through it, they are racking up kills if it comes down to a percentage victory condition.

Summoned models don't add to your army's starting size, but DO count toward number of models killed. For example:

If you have a starting army of 50 models, and over the course of the game summon 50 more... If the enemy kills every summoned model (50 kills) he has killed 100% of your army's starting number of models. If the enemy started with 60 models, and hasn't summoned anything, and you've killed 59 of his models, that's only about 98% of his army. So you'll lose.

Make sure you table him and don't run out of time.

Definitely something to be wary of. Summon hard units... e.g. Crypt Horrors! Bat swarms also have good chances to replenish their wounds, healing all damage if they do ONE wound.

 

[Banat]

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer?Nao=24&Nu=product.repositoryId&N=102295 4294967072&searchTerm=&sorting=phl&categoryId=cat440002a-flat
The descriptions of all the old races have been updated.
Bretonia and the empire share theirs and live in sigmaron. Read a few others, Nagash seems very much a part of the new setting mentioned in the VC and TK description. Interestingly vampires are not mentioned once in the VC bit...

In the white dwarf with the mini, "Soulblight Vampires" were mentioned, which to me sounds like the new (protectable?) name of Vampires, in the same way that Dwarves have become the "Steamhead Duardin".

 

[Count michael]

I am almost sad they didn't release a rulebook, mainly for the fluff side (hopefully they release a full in depth fluff tome) the more snippets of fluff I find about it the more I like the setting, the posibilities are endless. I am a huge fan of Vikings and the Nordic god reference with the nine worlds each home to different races really roped me in. I understand some peoples reaction to the Stormcast eternals or "Sigmarines" as some have dubbed them (hell I think most of the hate of some of the rant vids/ blogs etc is this fact) but in all honesty they are really different. Fluffwise they sound pretty awesome, the fallen souls of valiant warriors who have been reforged into mighty warriors clad in divine plate armour wielding mighty weapons Modelwise they are just as good.

In my opinion they actually look nothing like space marines sure they have the same armoured aesthetic but so what the chaos warriors are the same and no one has called them dubbed them chaos marines, the eternals are exactly armoured how one in heavy plate armour should be, only the pauldrons and chest plate hint at the astarte vibe but pauldrons are more fantasy than sci-fi whilst the chest is only because the blood angels have that weird erotic nipple chest armour. I'd also say the heads are weird but suit with the whole reborn in lighting theme hell the whole stormcast eternals looks like GW wanted to release an army that is a direct opposite to the heavily armoured chaos warriors but with a more noble look

 

[El Syf]

They are releasing this on Saturday which will expand on the fluff.
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Book-ENG

 

[Banat]

I must confess I was a bit disappointed with the amount of fluff in the starter set, or admittedly, the lack of fluff. The minifig white dwarf felt like it had more background info on, with its info on the space/gap in time between the End Times and the beginning of Age of Sigmar.

It seems each further campaign book will cover a collection of factions and worlds, so in the upcoming one there's definitely "Sylvaneth" (tree kin -> dunno if that will stretch to full on wood elves), and covering a few of the world but i'm not sure which ones, although Death isn't featuring heavily atm, but probably in future.

Sorry, grammar just went out the window, I've angled my Knight Grammar Shield to face the quarter of the table that I'm marking in for this turn, so I don't get it on my laptop forums...

 

[Menkeroth]

It seems each further campaign book will cover a collection of factions and worlds, so in the upcoming one there's definitely "Sylvaneth" (tree kin -> dunno if that will stretch to full on wood elves), and covering a few of the world but i'm not sure which ones, although Death isn't featuring heavily atm, but probably in future.

Aye, the forces of Nurgle will invade the lands of the Sylvaneth (trees and the like, it's said the wood elves aren't related to them now). So it seems Death forces and VC especially will be later.

 

[Sception]

aesthetic thoughts:

Spoiler

Model-wise, I like the aesthetic of the sigmarites and khorne chaos figures. My only complaint is that they're all men, a complaint I also have with the dark vengeance box, although at least there you can argue some of the head-to-toe covered chaos cultists are ambiguous, and there's at least in-universe justifications (though I don't rate such things very highly), for the marines to be all men.

Out of the entire, 60 odd model box, there's not a single female or even ambiguous figure, and that seems to be continuing with the Age of Sigmar releases going forward. So sigmar gathered all the greatest heroes from across the mortal realms, and none of them were women? Khorne cares only for murder, not for who is killing who, but only so long as the folks doing the killing are dudes? You'd think of all the chaos gods, the Blood God wouldn't turn up its nose at having women in his forces.

To me, it sends a (unintentional, certainly) message that, in Age of Sigmar's setting, women are capable of neither courage nor wrath, and I find that frustratingly narrow. Has not Valkia already shown that a female warrior can embody the fury of Khorne? Is not Joan of Arc the historical figure that most models the divine warrior theme that the Sigmarites are going for? Are GW looking to broaden their fantasy game's audience and reach out to new players or not? It's not something I'm going to rail about, the game is facing enough negative reactions already, but yeah, it annoys me.

Again, I do like the overall aesthetic style of both factions, if I was interested in playing stormcasts or blood whatevers it wouldn't stop me from buying the starter kit, but I do find it to be a bit annoying. Heck, even a single female warrior or barbarian on the chaos side might have gotten me to purchase the kit, just to have a better model to use than Valkia to represent the leader of the feral world chaos cultists in my CSM army (army is based loosely on Final Fantasy Tactics fluff, and need a Milleuda analog).

Fluff-wise, yeah, I was hoping for more of a grand tour from the starter box, and we got, if anything, less than the accompanying white dwarf issue. I'll be holding off on the upcoming book until we can see some sort of confirmation that it covers more than just chaos, sigmarites, and dryads.

 

[Seneschal]

Well, that does sound a bit dangerous, but I mean, skeletons revive d6 per turn as well. A larger sized skeleton unit is unlikely to simply be destroyed in one go. Plus with the undead we can literally just resummon our screens as we advance, which is quite a bit better than other armies face.

And then there is Calvary (Or any faster moving unit), which can close the gap on most ranged units within a turn. Many can be within a risky charge range within one turn starting outside of the ranged weapon's range. Then if you consider them starting inside the range of the guns, they will have a very good chance of getting into charges in one turn.

I won't lie, the new rules certainly make "heroes" feel much more vulnerable, because I mean, you can't even throw them into "Sure thing" combats where they will never be hurt like before. But it's not a complete loss, now we can use our heroes to support our units and use them a bit more cautiously rather than just playing Hero-hammer and letting them smash anything they want or running off alone. I mean they can run off alone as well, just not into the center of the opponents army, unless they plan to die.

I mean, yeah I share your reservations, but I don't like trying to apply theory to what is going to be happening in games too soon. I'd rather play out a good number of games, and I guess if I notice that cannons are consistently destroying my heroes and mitigating any attempt at me hiding behind something else? Then yeah, it might be an issue that needs resolved, but I'd rather see it happen on a regular basis before assuming it'll be a regular thing. Certainly something to look out for though.

@Tawg Hello there,

First, I forgot to mention Stonethrowers. They do not require line of sight so that makes the shooting phase even deadlier.

I never said I'm applying theory, I did when I first saw the rules, yes, but then I would have to include a number of things I don't really want to discuss as this thread is already on page 34. I've played four games at another club, watched another two and viewed maybe six more on the net. I've gone up against/witnessed the same amount of warmachines and firepower I did in 8th for most of the games, the sole exception being one where I only faced a cygor. Shooting needs to be nerfed in some form, especially since you aren't guaranteed to have a turn once your opponent is done with his.

As far as true line of sight being problematic, people use laser pointers a lot in my area, no idea if they are used elsewhere but that can solve that problem easily.

Healing D6 wounds a turn will give you an average of 3 skellies back on the field, which isn't enough to mitigate potential losses caused by the now more powerful shooting phase.

Horrors can die just as easily as infantry now that they will always be wounded on a set number. Gone is their T5 and their regen, replaced by a save that can be modified. Sure, they can block line of sight for a hero but they aren't tough enough to withstand irondrakes/bolt throwers with 12 shots/etc.

It would hurt the tactical movement of the game, allowing characters to put themselves out front more, using range attacks and spearheading charges with a much reduced risk. Part of the game is screening heroes from threats as they move around the units.

As for units laying waste to units with mass shooting. They would just shoot away the unit anyways, so the character would lose look out sir. Perhaps running two units as screens is better. Like the combined arms strategy I mentioned before.

It's still a 50% chance so anyone putting their heroes out front is still taking a risk. I've seen a lot of discussion about how it's cool that you can apply real world tactics to this game. If that's the case, then having a Tomb King or the like at the front line leading his army is more realistic than being screened, isn't it? We are proud lords of the dead, we face our foes head on. Hiding in bunkers is for our vassals and minions, the necromancers and liches of our army and of course, those cowardly skaven! Boo Hiss!

As for the second part of your post, Najo; Yes, the unit would be crushed by shooting so the hero would lose LOS but your opponent would still have to put the work in to do it.

I've never said that people shouldn't play AoS. By all means, do what makes you happy, I gladly endorse that. It's just something I personally am not interested in.

 

[GDD]

The fluff book is interesting. I am looking forward to seeing the new aesthetics, and faction designs. I am a bit worried about the Dwarfs regarding their new faction name, and what that might imply.. I would also welcome a tree kin faction WITHOUT elfs with open arms. That would be awesome.

Regarding the gender thing I am not offended by it, but I think it would be a smart move to have some female warriors. And it would certainly be a breath of fresh air. A Valkyrie inspired unit would be cool. Just don't give them "boob plate" armor designs.

 

[Sception]

@Menkeroth - You're probably not the only one not to care, but if you outright claim to prefer it this way, you might be in a smaller group then. Would it have made you less likely to try the game if some of those angelic suits of armor had a more feminine aspect? Would you have turned away from the game had the khorne side been led by a Valkia-esque figure, or even a new plastic version of Valkia herself? Or if one or two of the marauders or chaos warriors had looked like a chaosed up version of the Diablo 3 female barbarian? If some want to see variety in this aspect and others don't care, then would not variety be the better choice?

As for whether or not it's an issue, it's 2015. Sixty-to-zero strikes me as a pretty embarrassing gender ratio for a flagship product line from a company supposedly trying to expand its audience. Again, it's not something I'm up in arms over, it just seems like a missed opportunity, and kind of an unfortunate indicator of some behind-the-times thinking.

...............

Fluff-wise, once we do start getting our faction fleshed out a bit, I hope we see some new personalities getting a share of the limelight. I like that our End Times characters are still around, and that Nagash has a prominent roll in the game world, if for no other reason than I purchased those models and I'm happy that they still have a place in the game and the setting, but at the same time, this is a bold new warhammer world, thousands of years and millions of miles from what came before, so I'm eager to see some new faces as well. If the realm of death is fleshed out, and the key personalities are 'nagash, arkhan, krell, neferata' and so on, I'd be pretty disappointed.

In particular, I am very happy with how Vlad's death in end times was handled, and would prefer if that was allowed to be the end of his story. Now, I felt that way before, and was initially skeptical of his return in the End Times fluff, and in the end had to admit that he was handled very well during the end times, so I'm not saying I'd necessarily object if he were still kicking around in Age of Sigmar, but I'd rather the role of 'sympathetic deathlord with at least an iota of care for the living' go to a new character with closer ties to the mortals of Age of Sigmar's setting and world.

Perhaps a mortal hero who fought against the darkness during the age of chaos, one who hates sigmar for shutting himself away and abandoning humanity. Maybe even someone invited to become one of the stormcast eternals, but rejected that invitation due to his disgust for a god who would abandon his people, who turned instead to Nagash, who was at least a point of constancy.

Or maybe someone who only ends up with nagash due to being turned into a vampire.

Maybe they could pull a gender reversal of the old dracula trope with Isabella, and while fighting against chaos she spies a mortal hero who reminds her of her long lost love Actually, Isabella in general could be built up into a more interesting character on her own if Vlad is gone as well. Not that she isn't an interesting character now, but she has more narrative room to grow if Vlad is left in the grave.

 

[Sception]

@Menkeroth - yeah, gender politics does come into it, representation is a thing that matters to me, and there's plenty of research to show that it's a thing that matters in general. But it's also a matter purely of aesthetics. Imagine if every model in the game were in the exact same pose. It might be an awesome dynamic pose on its own, taken individually they all might be great models. No one model could you point to and say 'that one should be in a different pose, it would look better if it weren't standing that way'. But at the same time, if you put them all together on the field it just feels wrong, and you start to want some variety there.

As for new faces in the fluff - I edited my last post to expand a bit on the sort of thing I'd like to see. In particular, I'd like a new face for the 'nobility in death' archetype to replace Vlad, who, I feel, had a great death in the end times campaign that I wouldn't want to cheapen by bringing him back. Of course, I felt the same way about his first death before end times brought him back, and he was handled well then, so I wouldn't be complaining if he came back, I'd just prefer a new face in that role, someone with more of a connection to the mortal throngs of humanity in Age of Sigmar's setting, rather than tied to peoples and places of the old world. In particular, someone who could call out Sigmar for abandoning his people.

A "You cowered in your golden palace while your mortal children fought and died and fought on regardless without you" kind of character. A paragon hero of humanity who was called to become one of the stormwhatevers and rejected the invitation due to disdain for Sigmar, or who would have been invited but wasn't because they had already been claimed by one of Nagash's lieutenants. Perhaps Isabella lives on, having resolved to live in honor of Vlad's sacrifice for her rather than throw that gift away to follow him back into the grave, and saw in this hero some reflection of her lost love, in a gender-swapped reversal of the classic Dracula trope?

I'm getting too carried away with the specifics at this point, but yeah, I'd like to see some new faces on team undead tied to the current setting, rather than a lineup consisting entirely of characters whose defining character moments are all tied to a world that hasn't existed for millenia.

 

[Menkeroth]

@Menkeroth - yeah, gender politics does come into it, representation is a thing that matters to me, and there's plenty of research to show that it's a thing that matters in general. But it's also a matter purely of aesthetics. Imagine if every model in the game were in the exact same pose. It might be an awesome dynamic pose on its own, taken individually they all might be great models. No one model could you point to and say 'that one should be in a different pose, it would look better if it weren't standing that way'. But at the same time, if you put them all together on the field it just feels wrong, and you start to want some variety there.

Are you talking about this? well, it was always so in WHFB

@Menkeroth
As for new faces in the fluff - I edited my last post to expand a bit on the sort of thing I'd like to see. In particular, I'd like a new face for the 'nobility in death' archetype to replace Vlad, who, I feel, had a great death in the end times campaign that I wouldn't want to cheapen by bringing him back. Of course, I felt the same way about his first death before end times brought him back, and he was handled well then, so I wouldn't be complaining if he came back, I'd just prefer a new face in that role, someone with more of a connection to the mortal throngs of humanity in Age of Sigmar's setting, rather than tied to peoples and places of the old world. In particular, someone who could call out Sigmar for abandoning his people.

And for that he becomes a vampire, cursing himself for all eternity? Vampires are hardly opponents of Sigmar, you know