is the terrain scratch built or new range do we think?
I thought it was scratch built at first but seeing them show off two whole ranks of what appears to be identical wall segments makes me think it might be a terrain set. But its really hard to tell; GW makes a lot of terrain in-house and this could just be in house terrain themed around the new faction. It would be neat to see and it might speak of future terrain features GW might release. Faction Terrain has done well in general and if its overseas produced they could start going down the lines of faction and grand alliance walls.
The big monster is awesome to the max. Except for the Ossiarch dude dangling between his legs...though in this case it looks a bit like PICKLE RICK to THE MAXXX!!1!one Which is at least kind of funny.
The more I see of this army, the more I like it. I was originally sort of nonplussed (outside of the awesome leader model). But I like the Excavator, and some of the unannounced models in that picture are very cool. Should be pretty easy to paint too...
Well that is a bit more like what I thought we'd see. Remember when I said they should be abomination of skeletons smushed together... yeah. This is what I meant, just not with the silly crotch skeleton and Warmachine legs.
I'm really liking the undead Carnifex meets a corpse cart meets a ghost ark. Hopefully it'll have fun crazy rules appropriate to such a crazy model.
My son was already liking the Morghasts and the catapult, but the reptilian head on this crazy thing might sway him from his squig and troll heavy goblin list.
This army is going to be pretty huge. I am counting 8 possible heroes for it already.
Heros:
1. Mortisian Boneshaper- Only in leaked pics
2. Scythe Hero- Nova Reveal
3. Hero inside walking skulls- revealed in large army community pic
4. Tithe Hero- Revealed at Nova
5. Calvary Hero- Revaleaed in leaked image/full picture in community
6. Arkhan- Revealed in leaked images/Full Army pic
7. Katakros- Revealed at Nova
8. Nagash- May be in the army according to new army pic
Weird aside since the conversation has moved onto the Bonermancers... but on the topic of Gotrek... which armies can even take him in matched-play without losing their army buffs? Is he strictly meant to be a Legacy piece?
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Weird aside since the conversation has moved onto the Bonermancers... but on the topic of Gotrek... which armies can even take him in matched-play without losing their army buffs? Is he strictly meant to be a Legacy piece?
Taken from warscroll:
You can include Gotrek Gurnisson as an allied unit in any army that is a faction from the Order Grand Alliance. If you do so, you cannot include any other allied units in the army. You can include Gotrek Gurnisson in a Pitched Battle or Meeting Engagement army even if his points cost exceeds the amount allowed for allied units.
So is there a way to find out who’s writing the Ossiarch book? I’m curious because if we know it could give an indication of if they’ll be OP like Flesh Eaters or more balanced like Grotz. I hope they’re just creative fun, I’d rather not stomp all over my friends because I got the new toyz.
Now that's a pretty nice proper bone construct thingy. Not sure of the arms (as it happens the non-bone construct parts) and definitely not a fan of the half-person dangling between his legs though.
Halberd+shield guys look pretty massive in that group pic.
Did I miss something? was there a hue and a cry for bone construct monsters? I would think undead players would really like to have a Vampire army first. Oh well, maybe in two years.
Smellingsalts wrote: Did I miss something? was there a hue and a cry for bone construct monsters? I would think undead players would really like to have a Vampire army first. Oh well, maybe in two years.
I still want my damp blood lines back, couldn't be less interested in these new constructs.
Alpharius wrote: I suppose vampires would have a bit more moisture about compared to Skeletons, but...
Hey, its a good way for GW to brand the Soulblight guys into their very own DAMPIRES. Blood so fresh they're always soaked in it, order right noooooOOoooow!
Smellingsalts wrote: Did I miss something? was there a hue and a cry for bone construct monsters? I would think undead players would really like to have a Vampire army first. Oh well, maybe in two years.
Some would, I’m sure. I doubt all undead players have the exact same opinions though.
Smellingsalts wrote: Did I miss something? was there a hue and a cry for bone construct monsters? I would think undead players would really like to have a Vampire army first. Oh well, maybe in two years.
Some would, I’m sure. I doubt all undead players have the exact same opinions though.
Loved more Vampires but this does look an interesting army.
Pretty underwhelming, although these board game ports tend to be, and I'm not sure what I expected (spoiler: actual rules for the big dudes on each team would have been nice). Iron Golem 4+ save with a reroll if they don't move is pretty neat tho? And the Untamed Beast harpoon is pretty real for basically 70 pts per ... if only 8" :/
Boss Salvage wrote: Dunno if y'all caught it, but the Warcry starter stuff is being released separately, and has Slaves to Darkness warscrolls for AOS:
Pretty underwhelming, although these board game ports tend to be, and I'm not sure what I expected (spoiler: actual rules for the big dudes on each team would have been nice)
Hate to break it to you but they got those warscrolls when the starter came out
Boss Salvage wrote: Dunno if y'all caught it, but the Warcry starter stuff is being released separately, and has Slaves to Darkness warscrolls for AOS:
Pretty underwhelming, although these board game ports tend to be, and I'm not sure what I expected (spoiler: actual rules for the big dudes on each team would have been nice). Iron Golem 4+ save with a reroll if they don't move is pretty neat tho?
well at lest it does not have the same stupid unit size restrictions as other conversions....
ImAGeek wrote: Hate to break it to you but they got those warscrolls when the starter came out
High five it is then If these teams were battleline you'd have a pretty cool SoD gladiator crew in the end - I'd consider running max size Iron Golems if they counted for something or had a stat better than 4+. But alas, just fun filler units.
Boss Salvage wrote: Dunno if y'all caught it, but the Warcry starter stuff is being released separately, and has Slaves to Darkness warscrolls for AOS:
Pretty underwhelming, although these board game ports tend to be, and I'm not sure what I expected (spoiler: actual rules for the big dudes on each team would have been nice). Iron Golem 4+ save with a reroll if they don't move is pretty neat tho?
well at lest it does not have the same stupid unit size restrictions as other conversions....
They do. You must add them exactly according to the box contents (i.e., if you take 16 Iron Golems, you must take two Dominars, two Signifiers and two Ogor Breachers.
Boss Salvage wrote: Dunno if y'all caught it, but the Warcry starter stuff is being released separately, and has Slaves to Darkness warscrolls for AOS:
Pretty underwhelming, although these board game ports tend to be, and I'm not sure what I expected (spoiler: actual rules for the big dudes on each team would have been nice). Iron Golem 4+ save with a reroll if they don't move is pretty neat tho?
well at lest it does not have the same stupid unit size restrictions as other conversions....
They do. You must add them exactly according to the box contents (i.e., if you take 16 Iron Golems, you must take two Dominars, two Signifiers and two Ogor Breachers.
I actually rather like them. They pair perfectly with the warbands so that you can port them over to AoS without any modification or worry and the stats are simple enough to use for the game - its not like the Underworld teams where they are all special characters with different weapons and stats all over the place whilst operating as a single unit and one leader.
I also think that visually they work too. Having more units of unique types the larger the warband works really well visually; far more so than having 3 or 4 banners and musicians (but only one leader model).
I really want to field a full Untamed Beasts force with lions and warriors charging over the battlefield.
Right now I'm hoping that marauder models are retired for AoS and replaced with the warbands or added to with the warbands - even though Iron Golems are somewhat of a show stealer being far more resilient than the rest
Mr_Rose wrote: Under the Description (sorry, DESCRIPCIÓN) heading, the first line starts “Arkhan the Black es…”
Odd to see the English there but I guess they don’t translate all unit names?
Not anymore, no. At the very least in spanish (and I was under the impression that it was also the case in other languages) unit names and most of the time also the names of anything with rules don't get a translation.
It is SO much fun >_>, particularly when you're a freelance translator and have to work with GW's licensees... So. Much. Fun.
ImAGeek wrote: Hate to break it to you but they got those warscrolls when the starter came out
High five it is then If these teams were battleline you'd have a pretty cool SoD gladiator crew in the end - I'd consider running max size Iron Golems if they counted for something or had a stat better than 4+. But alas, just fun filler units.
Carry on lamenting bone dudes, AOS N&R!
You are suppose to compare these units to Marauders because they fill the same role.
Compared to Marauders all of the Iron Golems get the bolas in addition to their melee attacks, they are rocking a Leadership of 8. For just a few more points over marauders. Only down side is the move 5" instead of 6", and can't take a chaos mark.
The Untamed beasts get their extra movement from unleashed beasts and they get the jagged harpoon. Other wise they are marauders who cost 10 points more and can't take a chaos mark.
It seems to me the role of the Warcry war bands, is to give alternative flavours to Marauders for undivided/slaves to darkness pure armies. Their lack of being able to take a mark, making them less useful in dedicated armies.
This is so much better than what was shown before. still, its a shame cause this army could have been so cool, yet the basic models (inf and cav) are so goofy that it is unsalvageable
streetsamurai wrote: This is so much better than what was shown before. still, its a shame cause this army could have been so cool, yet the basic models (inf and cav) are so goofy that it is unsalvageable
Well, there might be a way to make something else battleline. Everyone else gets that, so it stands to reason we'll see it for Ossies, too. It's not ideal but in that case it wouldn't strictly be unsalvageable at least.
Lockark wrote: You are suppose to compare these units to Marauders because they fill the same role.
I mean, for me the main problem was the warbands not having Battleline, which means I have to waste sometimes significant points on things that aren't particularly interesting. But I just looked at the Slaves to Darkness options and wow, those guys are spoiled for Battleline tax - 1 chariot for 80 pts! Superb and sufficiently gladiatorial!
So yea, I'm back with you. Would be fun to do an SoD force with all the warbands. Hella expensive but so it goes
To be fair a lot of units tend to go up in points for 2.0. I figure GW is sightly adjusting things for the "new game" and we'll likely see 3K grow to the the norm over a few years or see the points come down
highlord tamburlaine wrote: I wonder if Ossiarchs will be able to take Morghasts as battle line in some form.
I want an excuse to field a bunch.
Right now the issue I can see is the Morghasts and the new four bladed warriors almost copy each other - both have a sword and then a halberd option. The only big visual difference is that the Morghast can fly.
However its really hard to guess at anything until we get some rules and details - darn it where's that leak department when you need it It's a long wait until the end of October (banking on them launching then rather than the start)
Honestly I'd expect the new four armed warrior to have more chance to be battleline instead of the morghasts.
Battleline is curious in AoS, but in general works well in most armies; its only Slaanesh where I wish things like fiends were battleline to give a bit more reason to vary what non-leader models one chooses to take ;but that's more an issue with how depravity works than anything else.
I figure the 4 arm guys are going to be a bit more tanky than morghasts, especially if they're taking the shield option.
At least morghasts should still have the distance and charge abilities as their exclusive niche.
I'm just sad I missed the boat on the Grand Legion of Nagash or whatever it was called that let you take them as Battle line.
highlord tamburlaine wrote: I figure the 4 arm guys are going to be a bit more tanky than morghasts, especially if they're taking the shield option.
At least morghasts should still have the distance and charge abilities as their exclusive niche.
I'm just sad I missed the boat on the Grand Legion of Nagash or whatever it was called that let you take them as Battle line.
I am hoping the Morghasts get better rules. They are pretty bland right now, though I love the models.
I imagine for battleline we'll be able to take the rank and file, and at least one version of the four arms if not both. We may have more options depending on who we take as our general as well. I could see Morghasts being battle line if we take Arkhan for instance.
I hope not. I've long wished to make a Morghast based army but the Nagash requirement always made it totally infeasible in my very tournament centric meta.
I have Nurgle and Squig based armies which do ok outside of events. My next project is a Free Cities project which is 60% theme and 40% Gotrek. I really hope I can make a force that can contend without either rolling over to the meta lists or steamrolling the casuals.
I am also sick of this dynamic but God damn it if I'm not s slave to my enjoyment of the narrative I bought into as a youngster.
mortar_crew wrote: The only thing I want for AoS is a Slaanesh mortal battleline choice.
Simple as that.
Chaos Warriors?
They aren't sculpted with Slaanesh in mind and are generic Chaos. By Mortals they mean a new sculpt of a mortal (not demon) unit with the marks of chaos corruption on their bodies. Much like the other gods have human (ish) warriors which are counted as warped mortals of their respective gods.
The Slaanesh release was great but it was mostly all leader models along with the awesome new fiends. GW also removed two metal models from the army which were mortal lords (the one on foot how was the old named Slaanesh hero from the Old World and the one on the giant "boobie snake" as it is often called). Though you can still use those as Slaves to Darkness mortal leaders with marks of Slaanesh; its not the same.
In that sense at least, it would have been nice if the Warcry bands had been designed with certain Gods in mind - that could have been 1-2 new mortal units for each. Or maybe straddling the line between two, in different combinations, for yet more variation and options. For a faction called Chaos, they have a tendency to look pretty samey now, especially when limiting yourself to one deity.
I think you can argue that in terms.of aesthetics at least a few warbands were designed with certain gods in mind, and indeed some of the slaanesh artwork from.the recent release seems to tease both the untamed beasts and (maybe) the splintered fang.
But I'm hopeful.that Slaanesh mortals will get a release with/just after the eventual 40k Slaanesh release, which, fingers.crossed, will he next year.
I’m hoping that they can release good rank and file mortal cultist models for each chaos god faction too. So far only Khorne has them (Bloodreavers). Blight Kings seem more ‘elite’, in the same guise as Skullreapers or Wrath Mongers. Actually, come to think of it, they could all do with mid tier Blood Warrior level units too.
Lets not forget its only very recently that GW took Chaos Demons and split them from one army into four functional armies. There are clearly still lots of gaps such as how most of them haven't got much ranged support (ironically the most close combat mad of them all has some of the best range in the Khorne Skull Cannon).
I'd love to see some slaanesh throwingknife/spear/archer units to whittle the enemy afar with painful barbed cuts that dig into them. Unleashing a punishing wall of pain before claw armed deamonettes and mighty fiends can close and rend them limb from bloody limb.
Just no more whips please - whips are cool but no more no more!!!!
mortar_crew wrote: The only thing I want for AoS is a Slaanesh mortal battleline choice.
Simple as that.
Chaos Warriors?
They aren't sculpted with Slaanesh in mind and are generic Chaos. By Mortals they mean a new sculpt of a mortal (not demon) unit with the marks of chaos corruption on their bodies. Much like the other gods have human (ish) warriors which are counted as warped mortals of their respective gods.
The Slaanesh release was great but it was mostly all leader models along with the awesome new fiends. GW also removed two metal models from the army which were mortal lords (the one on foot how was the old named Slaanesh hero from the Old World and the one on the giant "boobie snake" as it is often called). Though you can still use those as Slaves to Darkness mortal leaders with marks of Slaanesh; its not the same.
I realize it’s thesame issue as warriors, but get a big block of 40 Chaos Marauders and a few boxes of Hellstriders; use the extra heads and shields to make Slaanesh themed Marauders and have a huge infantry block for 200pts that gets exploding 6’s. That’s what I did, and I love how they look.
Overread wrote: Lets not forget its only very recently that GW took Chaos Demons and split them from one army into four functional armies. There are clearly still lots of gaps such as how most of them haven't got much ranged support (ironically the most close combat mad of them all has some of the best range in the Khorne Skull Cannon).
I'd love to see some slaanesh throwingknife/spear/archer units to whittle the enemy afar with painful barbed cuts that dig into them. Unleashing a punishing wall of pain before claw armed deamonettes and mighty fiends can close and rend them limb from bloody limb.
Just no more whips please - whips are cool but no more no more!!!!
I fully agree with you, but I suspect we both know the sad reality is that GW has never seen a slaanesh whip sculpt they didn't like. :(
Yeah, Slaanesh needs some (any really) good mortal followers. Especially if they did them like the tzaanagors, where they duel kitted for 40k somehow. It’s not like slaaneshy cults are limited to just one setting. Perhaps when Emperors children get their own book? Still wish the poxwalkers had been a duel kit which could have benefitted Maggotkin. It’s not like they weren't released only a couple months after the deathguard.
And where are the Slaanagors, Khornagors, and Pestigors (other than the 2 on the nurgle BB team)? If you’re talking about kits that could support multiple armies, across a few games, they’d be perfect!
Overread wrote: Lets not forget its only very recently that GW took Chaos Demons and split them from one army into four functional armies. There are clearly still lots of gaps such as how most of them haven't got much ranged support (ironically the most close combat mad of them all has some of the best range in the Khorne Skull Cannon).
I'd love to see some slaanesh throwingknife/spear/archer units to whittle the enemy afar with painful barbed cuts that dig into them. Unleashing a punishing wall of pain before claw armed deamonettes and mighty fiends can close and rend them limb from bloody limb.
Just no more whips please - whips are cool but no more no more!!!!
I fully agree with you, but I suspect we both know the sad reality is that GW has never seen a slaanesh whip sculpt they didn't like. :(
See I wouldn't mind it if they were like the whips we see in the artwork and basically a tentacle arm (of arms length plus a bit) dangling from the shoulder of a deamonette; or if they are coiled like the keeper's whip; its when they are insane long like the chariot or the new hero - long thin plastic that not only runs a high risk of snapping if you look at it wrong; but also makes storage a nightmare. The new lord takes up an insane amount of room and most of it is this forward reaching long whip!
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m hoping that they can release good rank and file mortal cultist models for each chaos god faction too. So far only Khorne has them (Bloodreavers). Blight Kings seem more ‘elite’, in the same guise as Skullreapers or Wrath Mongers. Actually, come to think of it, they could all do with mid tier Blood Warrior level units too.
mortar_crew wrote: The only thing I want for AoS is a Slaanesh mortal battleline choice.
Simple as that.
Well there's the StD ones, or Hellstriders for mono-Slaanesh. Do you mean an infantry choice?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: I hope not. I've long wished to make a Morghast based army but the Nagash requirement always made it totally infeasible in my very tournament centric meta.
I have Nurgle and Squig based armies which do ok outside of events. My next project is a Free Cities project which is 60% theme and 40% Gotrek. I really hope I can make a force that can contend without either rolling over to the meta lists or steamrolling the casuals.
I am also sick of this dynamic but God damn it if I'm not s slave to my enjoyment of the narrative I bought into as a youngster.
Unfortunately tourney and casual lists are far enough apart that your goals are mutually exclusive; something which can hold its own against meta lists will also be more than sufficient to roll casuals. I know because I've tried to do what you said for long enough to get worn out and give up. I just don't make a list ahead of time anymore; I find out how hard a list my opponent has and then match it.
Yeah however GW has a whole rafter of small factions. Heck Bonereapers are going to get more unit variety in tehir launch than Fyreslayers have in their entire 5 year lifespan of AoS. Even Daughters of Khaine don't really have a huge amount of variety.
There's ample room for a lot of AoS factions to get expanded. Heck whilst they've suffered possibly he most the Cities of Sigmar is actually going to wind up quite a full battletome and army.
I still think the Fyreslayers, Kharadron, and other dwarves should have been a Skaven-style combined faction with sub-types. They really don't have the variety to be standalone. The Fyreslayers have four unit options. Two of those are from the same kit and one of them is a Shadespire warband, so it really doesn't count.
TheWaspinator wrote: I still think the Fyreslayers, Kharadron, and other dwarves should have been a Skaven-style combined faction with sub-types. They really don't have the variety to be standalone. The Fyreslayers have four unit options. Two of those are from the same kit and one of them is a Shadespire warband, so it really doesn't count.
You know, I was starting to think the same thing. But would such a book have allowed for the individual Skyports and Lodges to retain their unique rules?
The less different units a faction has, the higher the chance that all of them will be useful and actually see the table
more different units and GW will just mess it up with 2 units taking similar roles on the battlefield with one being clearly better than the other
With all Dwarfs in one book you could be sure that half of the units would be useless and only taken by those who like the look so much that they do not care
TheWaspinator wrote: I still think the Fyreslayers, Kharadron, and other dwarves should have been a Skaven-style combined faction with sub-types. They really don't have the variety to be standalone. The Fyreslayers have four unit options. Two of those are from the same kit and one of them is a Shadespire warband, so it really doesn't count.
Eh, I disagree with this here. While each army doesn't have a ton of variety, the aesthetics between them are so radically different that I don't think they mesh well on the battlefield, The armies also operate radically different from each other and are very different lorewise. I just don't think they'd mesh as well together.
I could have seen Fyreslayers and Dispossessed working together eventually. The Kharadron were very different to both groups and I think worth being their own thing; but the other two could have worked in the same tome. Even if it was much like Gloomspite.
That said the real issue is that both the Dispossessed and Fyreslayers have very small forces to work with. Right now the former are making up for it by joining the Cities of Sigmar - a united aelf and human front (a last alliance to stand against the dark lord Sau.......Nagash)
The Fyreslayesr are still one of those armies that I think in a few years we'll see GW really flesh out with a big second wave of models to give them some diversity. Heck the team in charge of rules really hsould give them the magma dragons from FW as I bet a good few established Fyreslayer players would love an excuse to add one of those dragons to their army - not just have them lumped (almost hidden) in Destruction.
Much like the Myrewurm would fit beautifully into Idoneth.
Overread wrote: I could have seen Fyreslayers and Dispossessed working together eventually. The Kharadron were very different to both groups and I think worth being their own thing; but the other two could have worked in the same tome. Even if it was much like Gloomspite.
That said the real issue is that both the Dispossessed and Fyreslayers have very small forces to work with. Right now the former are making up for it by joining the Cities of Sigmar - a united aelf and human front (a last alliance to stand against the dark lord Sau.......Nagash)
The Fyreslayesr are still one of those armies that I think in a few years we'll see GW really flesh out with a big second wave of models to give them some diversity. Heck the team in charge of rules really hsould give them the magma dragons from FW as I bet a good few established Fyreslayer players would love an excuse to add one of those dragons to their army - not just have them lumped (almost hidden) in Destruction.
Much like the Myrewurm would fit beautifully into Idoneth.
Yeah, I think Fyreslayers suffered from AoS 1.0 back when GW really didn't seem to have a solid plan of what to do with AoS. We've seen all the new army releases since then be pretty fleshed out, with Nighthaunt, Gloomspite and Bonereapers being pretty large.
I assume the main plan right now is to get everyone on an AoS 2.0 tome and then start fleshing out the model lines, giving the 1.5 tomes a release all while continuing on the storyline.
TheWaspinator wrote: I still think the Fyreslayers, Kharadron, and other dwarves should have been a Skaven-style combined faction with sub-types. They really don't have the variety to be standalone. The Fyreslayers have four unit options. Two of those are from the same kit and one of them is a Shadespire warband, so it really doesn't count.
Eh, I disagree with this here. While each army doesn't have a ton of variety, the aesthetics between them are so radically different that I don't think they mesh well on the battlefield, The armies also operate radically different from each other and are very different lorewise. I just don't think they'd mesh as well together.
Agreed that they should be their own forces. Skaven are one big mash of different clans forming a greater whole, with merely different interpretations of the same values, culture, and gods. Fyreslayers are a completely different style from KO. Dispossessed sort of bridge the gap but at the same time behave on and off the battlefield quite differently.
Overread wrote: I could have seen Fyreslayers and Dispossessed working together eventually. The Kharadron were very different to both groups and I think worth being their own thing; but the other two could have worked in the same tome. Even if it was much like Gloomspite.
That said the real issue is that both the Dispossessed and Fyreslayers have very small forces to work with. Right now the former are making up for it by joining the Cities of Sigmar - a united aelf and human front (a last alliance to stand against the dark lord Sau.......Nagash)
The Fyreslayesr are still one of those armies that I think in a few years we'll see GW really flesh out with a big second wave of models to give them some diversity. Heck the team in charge of rules really hsould give them the magma dragons from FW as I bet a good few established Fyreslayer players would love an excuse to add one of those dragons to their army - not just have them lumped (almost hidden) in Destruction.
Much like the Myrewurm would fit beautifully into Idoneth.
Yeah, I think Fyreslayers suffered from AoS 1.0 back when GW really didn't seem to have a solid plan of what to do with AoS. We've seen all the new army releases since then be pretty fleshed out, with Nighthaunt, Gloomspite and Bonereapers being pretty large.
I assume the main plan right now is to get everyone on an AoS 2.0 tome and then start fleshing out the model lines, giving the 1.5 tomes a release all while continuing on the storyline.
Alot of phase 1 armies are suffering from lacklustre unit variety. FEC picked a very small subset of VC and tried to make an army out of that. Leading to FEC looking visually boring on the field. You got tiny ghouls, big ghouls and giant monsters.
FEC probably abuses it the most considering most of their models are just kit variations from the same kit. In the narrative they've one of the more curious and strange stories; but it really isn't reflected in the models at all, which is a huge shame and quite the disconnect that we are nto used to seeing with GW games.
Heck you can get almost the entire FEC range in one getting started set so they are fantastic value for money in terms of building an army; but at the same time they are very repetitive.
On the list of armies I hope get updated first FEC are near the top, even though I don't play them.
I also wonder if GW will revive (yes lots of puns there) Deathrattle and split them off from Vampires. That would give them two very differently styled skeleton forces, a vampire force, a ghost force and a ghoul force and would round out Death quite nicely.
I feel like Kharadrons could really do with a battletome update. Their model range is small but not quite like FEC or Fyreslayers. But they could definitely benefit from an updated set of rules.
Overread wrote: FEC probably abuses it the most considering most of their models are just kit variations from the same kit. In the narrative they've one of the more curious and strange stories; but it really isn't reflected in the models at all, which is a huge shame and quite the disconnect that we are nto used to seeing with GW games.
Heck you can get almost the entire FEC range in one getting started set so they are fantastic value for money in terms of building an army; but at the same time they are very repetitive.
On the list of armies I hope get updated first FEC are near the top, even though I don't play them.
I also wonder if GW will revive (yes lots of puns there) Deathrattle and split them off from Vampires. That would give them two very differently styled skeleton forces, a vampire force, a ghost force and a ghoul force and would round out Death quite nicely.
FEC will have to wait, they got a new battletome just a few months ago
Overread wrote: FEC probably abuses it the most considering most of their models are just kit variations from the same kit. In the narrative they've one of the more curious and strange stories; but it really isn't reflected in the models at all, which is a huge shame and quite the disconnect that we are nto used to seeing with GW games.
Heck you can get almost the entire FEC range in one getting started set so they are fantastic value for money in terms of building an army; but at the same time they are very repetitive.
On the list of armies I hope get updated first FEC are near the top, even though I don't play them.
I also wonder if GW will revive (yes lots of puns there) Deathrattle and split them off from Vampires. That would give them two very differently styled skeleton forces, a vampire force, a ghost force and a ghoul force and would round out Death quite nicely.
FEC will have to wait, they got a new battletome just a few months ago
Actually everyone just got a new Battletome a few months ago (to a year or so). KO and a few others are still waiting but by Q1 next year I expect the whole game to be on 2.0. The only reason GW hasn't been doing big model releases is simply because, like when they updated 40K recently, their pace of updating the rules (codex/battletome) is faster than they can invest and produce new models for in bulk at the same time. So some armies got a big release like Gloomspite Gitz; some got a modest release like Slaanesh and others got very little to nothing - heck Skaven (one of the big popular armies) got one new model.
So GW will likely update armies one by one steadily along with adding new things. The big turning point will be that after the last 2.0 Tome lands we should be ending with a period where GW can remove large blocks of models and armies and entering more normal times. When GW updates sculpts, adds new models and imght remove a model or two from an army, but only at the same time as adding more things. Ergo the normal state of affairs that we are used to.
Tiberius501 wrote: I feel like Kharadrons could really do with a battletome update. Their model range is small but not quite like FEC or Fyreslayers. But they could definitely benefit from an updated set of rules.
Absolutely. They were neutered almost immediately, then they were neutered again. Things are starting to look up for them a little bit but they’ll never be right until they get a new tome.
And as for the FEC; a fantastic concept let down by a limited mini range and how ridiculously over the top they went with their rules. Coming after the excellent BoC and Gloomspite books, it was quite funny watching them lurch back to ott.
Kharadron have actually decent variety of models, as far as AoS armies go, but their tome needs a complete revision. As they are, taking random units from GA:Order would be more effective list than 90% of the KO units.
At least KO have had a Tome - Slaves to Darkness and Everchosen - who are arguably the main bad faction for the whole setting - have yet to have a single Tome.
As it is I'm expecting t osee the old Marauder kit go from Slaves considering that GW has just given them 8 new themed "cultist" model forces through Warcry. Heck once Slaves comes around they could arguably have had the most unique new sculpts after stormcast, through the warcry releases.
I also really like that the specialists that increase make more sense in skirmish games. Getting more great cats and warrior with a spear etc.... makes far more sense than most other units where you get "another" banner and musician which just looks really odd if you've only got 30 models and 3 banners running around.
Overread wrote: At least KO have had a Tome - Slaves to Darkness and Everchosen - who are arguably the main bad faction for the whole setting - have yet to have a single Tome.
Wanderers, Freeguild, and Dispossessed never got a single Tome either...they just got lumped together after getting their ranges butchered and called "Free Cities".
Everchosen did have a Battletome. It consisted of Varanguard, Archaon, and Gaunt Summoners. The book has been Direct Only for some time though.
As it is I'm expecting to see the old Marauder kit go from Slaves considering that GW has just given them 8 new themed "cultist" model forces through Warcry. Heck once Slaves comes around they could arguably have had the most unique new sculpts after stormcast, through the warcry releases.
I also really like that the specialists that increase make more sense in skirmish games. Getting more great cats and warrior with a spear etc.... makes far more sense than most other units where you get "another" banner and musician which just looks really odd if you've only got 30 models and 3 banners running around.
I'm thinking we'll see an updated Marauder kit rather than them just dropped. The "Cultists" are likely to get their own niche.
Thing is the Stats for the current Warbands basically make them very similar to Marauders already. I just can't see an avenue for a generic group of chaos cultists when there's already 8 full and diverse and characterful groups ready to take their place.
That said we might well keep the mounted marauders, that is unless GW releases mound warbands or considers some of the faster warbands to replace the need for mounted troops.
I've also heard some wishlisting that Chaos Warriors could see updated models; but that one is purely a wishlist item so far.
My view on the cultists key word is that its most likely going to replace the "mark of chaos" mechanic. So instead of GW printing the mark of chaos and its 5 variations (one for each god and one generic) on almost every warscroll, they'll print it once in the book and then use the keyword on the warscrolls.
The biggest change that might happen there is that marks might have to be the same for the whole army; or they could remain as they are letting you mix and match. There's a lot of options even going as far as to have marked armies of Slaves along with Everchosen having his own army where marks can be from "any force" all within the same Tome.
Overread wrote: Thing is the Stats for the current Warbands basically make them very similar to Marauders already. I just can't see an avenue for a generic group of chaos cultists when there's already 8 full and diverse and characterful groups ready to take their place.
Yes, so diverse and characterful that one out of every eight guys is a dwarf with the exact same pose, another out of the same eight guys is an ogre, yet another is a banner bearer, and so forth.
GW is not averse to making dumb decisions, so something like that may actually happen, but I don't see how you are supposed to make an army out of warbands with sculpts specifically made for a skirmish game. At least if you value the look of your army. GW's normal troop boxes already have a tendency to provide monopose models that offer very little variation if you double up on them, something that is simply required for an army level game, and the models in the Warcry warbands are even more specific than that. Fine for a skirmish where you don't need to double up on a box, but completely stupid for an army level game.
I don't see how GW could write an army book around these Warbands without providing new kits to make the equivalent of Imperial Guard infantry boxes to the command squad boxes that are the current warband boxes. And I can't see GW releasing eight differently styled Marauder equivalent boxes with a Slaves to Darkness battletome.
It doesn't seem practicable to me at all to have the Warcry warbands form the foundation of the eventual battletome.
And yet to GW "Warcry is to AoS what Killteam is to 40K" Which suggests the warband are supposed to build into an AoS army; which is further supported by the fact that all the other races in Warcry use regular AoS models.
Heck the beasts from Warcry replace the old furies from Slaves to Darkness - the old metal ones are gone
What do you have that is building into an AoS army from a Warcry warband, provided you accept that that's GW's intent? Two boxes of your chosen warband that will form the basis for your Slaves to Darkness army? That's twenty models at best. How do you get the other eighty you need? Buy the same box another eight times? Branch out into a style different from your chosen one? Just pick Chaos Warriors instead that will then outnumber your Marauders even though it should be the other way around?
I can honestly not see where you're going with this idea. The various warbands are great for their intended purpose, but how exactly are you suggesting one would build a full army out of them?
Well you might start with one or two boxes of a Warcry Warband - add in an allied Darkoath Warqueen or any one of a number of the Tzeentch, Khorne or Nurgle (why no Slaanesh GW?) allies. You've got a pack of warbeasts too so there's some furies and perhaps you went and got a chimera too.
That's already the ground work of building an AoS army.
Sure you're not going to be building a 1K (in AoS points) worth warband typically; just like you won't do that in Killteam.
But you'll likely pick up enough to build a 500 point force and get started trying out AoS - get enough encouragment to work your way toward a 1K Meeting Engagement force.
For the other armies its even quicker because most of them rely on one or two boxed sets of troops so you'll build up even quicker.
Like I said its the gateway product that gets you in the front door and playing with a quick purchase. The more you play the more you might buy and before you knwo it you've a few hundred points worth of models then the jump to a 500 or 1K army in AoS isn't so "omg that's so much".
As I just noted with the "missing" slaanesh, not everything is even in Warcry yet. We might well see more monsters, characters and certainly a second wave of army cards for more regular armies joining in. GW might bring Skirmish back as well as another gateway product, but so far at this point in time the marketed gateway product is Warcry.
Sure, getting started with a Warcry warband and adding a few things to go to 500pts is a reasonable approach. No doubt about that.
But did I get you wrong? I thought initially you were talking about those warbands being a genuine replacement for a dedicated Marauder type kit?
Because that's what got me to think. You can't make a battletome and its miniatures solely based on the potential of another line of models providing a basis for half to a quarter of the actual army size. Just like you can't fall back on filling the missing models with allies because if that constitutes the bulk of your army, are you even playing Slaves to Darkness anymore?
With what they did to the various Order Factions, I can see the chaos marauder kit being retired. It’s old, outdated, and the warcry warbands have effectively replaced it. But there’s the chaos marauder horseman kit; much newer, looks pretty damn good and is modern in layout. So what if it was retained, and renamed as another tribe kit, if that makes sense?
Like, you’ve got the iron golems for example, who are heavily armoured infantry. You’ve got the Splintered Fang, the Corvus Cabal, Untamed Beasts etc. Just call the marauder horsemen the Savage Riders or whatever and bam, done.
I like the idea of the book being two factions; the tribal marauding slaves to darkness, and the highly disciplined heavily armoured everchosen, Archeon’s personal army.
Combining the Core Rules, Pitched Battle rules, Realm of Battle rules (including Artefacts and Spells of the Realms), the Grand Alliance allegiance abilities and 31 Pitched Battle battleplans, it’s the perfect companion for your next matched play game.
Sounds like a good way to get new players into the game instead of buying the Core Rules and the Malign Sorcery box.
Combining the Core Rules, Pitched Battle rules, Realm of Battle rules (including Artefacts and Spells of the Realms), the Grand Alliance allegiance abilities and 31 Pitched Battle battleplans, it’s the perfect companion for your next matched play game.
Sounds like a good way to get new players into the game instead of buying the Core Rules and the Malign Sorcery box.
Now, I wonder if this will make the realm spells more "official" for games. Right now the artifacts are almost always allowed to be taken in most tournaments and matched play games, but the realm spells have not usually been allowed.
I've been waiting for a dwarf/dispossessed box for so long. And it came with more than I figured it would, since it has two HQs. I don't have the engineer model, but the runesmith would have been better, since he's got two heads and four arm options (the engineer at least can swap out the axe, I suppose). I'm glad that they kept the more decent looking dwarfs, though I wish they kept the unforged/slayer. (The model is still around as Grombrindal, for now...)
I like the comet/tree design on that shield in the artwork, though it reminds me a bit too much of Slaanesh for some reason.
Oddly enough, the cogsmith doesn't even show up under the dispossessed range. Not that it should be an issue, given that the book is a compilation of multiple factions.
Is there some new terrain in this picture? I don't recognize the monster statues holding up the globe on the right, but I also don't have much AOS scenery.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Is there some new terrain in this picture? I don't recognize the monster statues holding up the globe on the right, but I also don't have much AOS scenery.
Spoiler:
I can't recall the name but it's an old one from when sigmar was first released, they had a wave of god awful chinese made plastic ruins that were pre clipped and never built well imo.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Is there some new terrain in this picture? I don't recognize the monster statues holding up the globe on the right, but I also don't have much AOS scenery.
Dudeface wrote: I can't recall the name but it's an old one from when sigmar was first released, they had a wave of god awful chinese made plastic ruins that were pre clipped and never built well imo.
I believe you're referring to the scenery which was released with the Storm of Magic rules for WHFB (e.g., the Magewrath Throne, Eternity Stairs, Dreadfire Portal, etc.).
It's just the Shattered Dominion set used in different ways along with wedding cake columns. The top of the walls are the sides of the Gryphstatue plinths and the column plinths for example
Maybe. But they would have had to cut away the wall from it, and then remove the tail piece, and resculpted the broken horn pieces. But it does look like exactly the same statue.
But it does look like the walls underneath are the numinous occulum walls turned upside-down.
Man, if they replaced the old State Troop box with humans that looked like that art I would be so tempted. The old State Troops look way too rag-tag for AoS (the Greatswords still hold up pretty well in my opinion).
Dudeface wrote: Just caught my attention the dwarf box is mentioned to have the firepower to tackle enemies at any range... with a total of 1 ranged unit in the box?
Yes and if you buy now my shiny Duardin Forged Armour is guaranteed to shrug of any assault that the Ruinous Powers might throw at you. A steal at only 330Urgold! Buy it now and I'll even throw in an authentic crossbow, capable of firing armour piercing bolts that can punch through the hardest of known Chaos hide! Be the envy of your friends; the bane of your foes and buy now!
Marketing is always about hyping up what you get. If its got one ranged model then that IS being capable of shredding your opponent at range. It never says it will win the war nor that its ranged focused. It's more pointing out that the boxed set has range and close combat capabilities. Esp considering how some getting started boxes can be purely close combat.
Oddly enough, the cogsmith doesn't even show up under the dispossessed range. Not that it should be an issue, given that the book is a compilation of multiple factions.
Overread wrote: Well you might start with one or two boxes of a Warcry Warband - add in an allied Darkoath Warqueen or any one of a number of the Tzeentch, Khorne or Nurgle (why no Slaanesh GW?) allies. You've got a pack of warbeasts too so there's some furies and perhaps you went and got a chimera too.
That's already the ground work of building an AoS army.
Sure you're not going to be building a 1K (in AoS points) worth warband typically; just like you won't do that in Killteam.
But you'll likely pick up enough to build a 500 point force and get started trying out AoS - get enough encouragment to work your way toward a 1K Meeting Engagement force.
For the other armies its even quicker because most of them rely on one or two boxed sets of troops so you'll build up even quicker.
Like I said its the gateway product that gets you in the front door and playing with a quick purchase. The more you play the more you might buy and before you knwo it you've a few hundred points worth of models then the jump to a 500 or 1K army in AoS isn't so "omg that's so much".
As I just noted with the "missing" slaanesh, not everything is even in Warcry yet. We might well see more monsters, characters and certainly a second wave of army cards for more regular armies joining in. GW might bring Skirmish back as well as another gateway product, but so far at this point in time the marketed gateway product is Warcry.
I just don’t think GW are thinking of Warcry being the same as KT the way that we are.
Kill Team builds into 40k because it’s basically existing kits.
I think in their heads KT gets you into 40k, lore and setting wise etc. Not necessarily, oh you have the models so go big.
And in that sense Warcry to AoS is the same. It isn’t about starting the army, just starting interest in the setting etc.
As mentioned, I think the models aware all uniquely Skirmish as it were..
Battletome: Cities of Sigmar isn’t just about the rules – it’s also your chance to discover the cities of the Mortal Realms in incredible detail through reams of new lore. From the spires of Tempest’s Eye to the libraries of the Collegiate Arcane, you’ll have the chance to see just what “ordinary” life in the Mortal Realms is like. With no fewer than seven short stories from acclaimed Black Library wordsmith Josh Reynolds, you can get more insights into the Cities of Sigmar than ever before.
Cities is a must buy just for this paragraph.
the seven greatest metropolises in the Mortal Realms
I think Nulahmia and a few others would dispute this
Combining the Core Rules, Pitched Battle rules, Realm of Battle rules (including Artefacts and Spells of the Realms), the Grand Alliance allegiance abilities and 31 Pitched Battle battleplans, it’s the perfect companion for your next matched play game.
Sounds like a good way to get new players into the game instead of buying the Core Rules and the Malign Sorcery box.
not only for new players, I can see myself getting that book so I have to carry less with me
A rare case where GW doesn't just go "wolves of Wolfington living in Wolftown riding wolves" in naming conventions.
The gaming book is great for new players, and I might consider buying it, if the price is low enough. I would like not to drag along three books with me wherever I go.
I’m excited for the cities book (is it preorder or release next week?) but as someone who wanted to do a dispossessed army I’m worried about the gutting of their range.
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m excited for the cities book (is it preorder or release next week?) but as someone who wanted to do a dispossessed army I’m worried about the gutting of their range.
hopefully we get some ideas during the week plus once it goes on sale the warscroll builder site should get updated too
Honestly I'm surprised GW doesn't have a warscroll builder for 40K for free now. It's especially useful in encouraging me to spend money sitting there theory crafting armies! Esp for factions I might not own
Empire, VC and Ogres.
Getting so close to them all having something.
Though realistically I won’t rebase the VC or Empire as they are all magnetised and in tray and blocks etc..
But nice to see them with books.
And this coming Ogor book, that’s what may get me to give it a go and play.
I really hope that after GW does Bonereapers, they pay some attention to Vampires. Right now the vampires are clearly popular in the lore and such, but game wise they are sort of sitting as a side order in the Legions army. It would be great to see them rise up wtih some updated models and get back to being the bloody monsters of the setting - right now Daughters of Khaine are ruling the roost in terms of blood
Damn straight. Tell me, are Abhorant Ghoul Kings vampires? Because if they are they’re a pretty good replacement for the old Strigoi line. Which makes me think that they should try to bring back more of the old lines in new forms.
For example, I think that the necromancers and zombie units would make a good infiltrating cultist faction for Death; their version of chaos cults. And vampires that are a sort of mixture of Von Carstein and Necarch would be perfect as the leader unit.
I like the Start Collecting kits. Especially the dwarf one is full of stuff I considered buying at one time or another. Hopefully they'll end up at the lower end of the price range for Start Collecting boxes.
Future War Cultist wrote: Damn straight. Tell me, are Abhorant Ghoul Kings vampires? Because if they are they’re a pretty good replacement for the old Strigoi line. Which makes me think that they should try to bring back more of the old lines in new forms.
For example, I think that the necromancers and zombie units would make a good infiltrating cultist faction for Death; their version of chaos cults. And vampires that are a sort of mixture of Von Carstein and Necarch would be perfect as the leader unit.
Yeah, Abhorrants are vampires and something like three quarters Strigoi. Instead of dwelling on the edge of society and getting their blood from vermin like Strigoi the first Abhorrant got locked up by Nagash and forgotten, and went bonkers in the process. They're (obviously) physically the same, using the same models, and they still have their connection with Ghouls. They just had their theme of being shunned and hunted by other vampires replaced with upsetting Nagash and being cursed with infectious delusions.
While I think the idea is very funny, I have a hard time seeing zombies as infiltrators. Less deformed Ghouls like the old metal versions would work better embedding themselves into society because they're not dead, not necessarily dimwitted, and don't reek quite as bad.
Personally I'd rather see a crossover army based on the free cities but incorporating Lahmia kind of vampires that pull the strings. That used to be their thing back in the day (in the background anyway) and since Neferata is still around there's no reason not to give it another try in AoS.
The artwork features humans in breast plates wearing what appears to be puff and slash clothing...Dare I dream of a nice infantry kit that would work well with old Empire armies?
Knowing GW they are all probably human Yorkie centaur things or something equally zany.
Vampires are all over the Mortal Realms including Azyr and the new Cites of Sigmar - when Nagash and Sigmar are not outright fighting they are probably given the same lattitude as Scourge privateers or Khainites.
Its fun that you can now have Blood Knights unit (Mecranaries) leading your Free Cities cavalry but yeah a Vampire led living army would be very nice and loresome, as you say Neferata has not changed and has her living and dead agents everywhere....
Lots and lots of details on Cities of Sigmar - from battleline to army composition to allies and even more.
Of note there's a huge amount of battleline units on offer as well as options for themed battalions.
In addition whilst they get no endless spells, all the universal endless spells that they do cast count as being empowered by their respective realm. So they get nothing unique, but they do get empowered spells even if you're not using realm rules for the game. That's going to make a lot of the core spells very attractive to use for them.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: The two new start collecting boxes are £60 each (from what the GW rep told my facebook based kit supplier today)
Not bad for Anvilgard, but you're just getting the characters for free in the Greywater Fastness one.
In USD:
Irondrakes/Ironbreakers are $50.
Gyrocopters are $50.
Cogsmiths and Warden Kings are $25 each, so that's another $50.
Contents are $150 but the box is $95.
You save $55, meaning both characters or any of the boxes are free and tax is a bit less.
Anvilgard is:
Corsairs for $30
Fleetmaster is $25
Kharibdyss/Hydra is $65
Chariot is $45
Contents are $165, box is $95.
You save $70...but comparatively, you're not getting much. Corsairs are cheap. A 10 man unit, currently, isn't impressive.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: The two new start collecting boxes are £60 each (from what the GW rep told my facebook based kit supplier today)
Not bad for Anvilgard, but you're just getting the characters for free in the Greywater Fastness one.
In USD:
Irondrakes/Ironbreakers are $50.
Gyrocopters are $50.
Cogsmiths and Warden Kings are $25 each, so that's another $50.
Contents are $150 but the box is $95.
You save $55, meaning both characters or any of the boxes are free and tax is a bit less.
Anvilgard is:
Corsairs for $30
Fleetmaster is $25
Kharibdyss/Hydra is $65
Chariot is $45
Contents are $165, box is $95.
You save $70...but comparatively, you're not getting much. Corsairs are cheap. A 10 man unit, currently, isn't impressive.
Gyrocopters were horrendously overpriced in cash when released though, it makes it artificially a better offering in that regard.
Mr Morden wrote:Vampires are all over the Mortal Realms including Azyr and the new Cites of Sigmar - when Nagash and Sigmar are not outright fighting they are probably given the same lattitude as Scourge privateers or Khainites.
Its fun that you can now have Blood Knights unit (Mecranaries) leading your Free Cities cavalry but yeah a Vampire led living army would be very nice and loresome, as you say Neferata has not changed and has her living and dead agents everywhere....
I used to have a Von Carstein army with plenty of Sylvanian militia. Ahh good old 6th(?).
Boss Salvage wrote:
Overread wrote: Of note there's a huge amount of battleline units on offer as well as options for themed battalions.
Oh my crap, Hydra/Kraken as battleline:
Spoiler:
Everything you see is battleline (many unlocked by choice of general)
I did not know that was a thing I needed in my life
I like what they're doing with Cities of Sigmar. Hopefully I could make a nice army using all my dwarfs, elves, and several human units.
Also, as someone who collected dwarfs quite a bit for Warhammer Fantasy, back when they were (mostly) all metal. I realized I don't have anything from the 'Greywater Fastness' set, so I'll definitely be picking that up. Especially if I can combine it with scattered units like the Demi-gryph riders, dark elf hydras, and various temperatures of Phoenix (Phoenixes? Phoenai?). Nice to see some representation for more common Fantasy tropes as well (dwerfs, effs, Ooomies) as well.
Overread wrote: Of note there's a huge amount of battleline units on offer as well as options for themed battalions.
Oh my crap, Hydra/Kharybdiss as battleline:
Spoiler:
Everything you see is battleline (many unlocked by choice of general)
I did not know that was a thing I needed in my life
My Empire army apparently needs more Steam Tanks. Battleline Steam Tanks is too silly not to try.
Don't go stockpiling tanks just yet - depending on how they implement it they could still be limited by the maximum number of behemoths you're allowed.
Captain Joystick wrote: Don't go stockpiling tanks just yet - depending on how they implement it they could still be limited by the maximum number of behemoths you're allowed.
"This means that your Cities of Sigmar army could consist of almost nothing but lumbering Steam Tanks"
Captain Joystick wrote: Don't go stockpiling tanks just yet - depending on how they implement it they could still be limited by the maximum number of behemoths you're allowed.
"This means that your Cities of Sigmar army could consist of almost nothing but lumbering Steam Tanks"
Unlike 40K, units in AoS can be in multiple battlefield roles. It is entirely possible for a Steam Tank to count against both the 'Battleline' and 'Behemoth' battlefield roles.
Army-wide "feth you" to Ethereal saves and FNP. Potentially free movement all over the place. DA BIG WAAAGH.
Holy. gak.
Yeah, that's just what Nighthaunt needed, haha....
Hits Nurgle even worse, build depending. Both armies are middle tier so don't really need it, but then it's just one specific sub faction of Bonesplittaz.
I think the big question is whether this will rein in the triple KoS lists, or if they’ll continue to dominate. I saw the post saying it can handle KoSs, but I didn’t see anything in that overview that scared me. I’d be pissing myself if I was a Nighthaunt or Nurgle player though!
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the big question is whether this will rein in the triple KoS lists, or if they’ll continue to dominate. I saw the post saying it can handle KoSs, but I didn’t see anything in that overview that scared me. I’d be pissing myself if I was a Nighthaunt or Nurgle player though!
The main problem with Triple Keepers is that the way Slaanesh works it kind of shoehorns you toward building that kind of list anyway regardless of the opponent. High damage output, high wound count leaders are pure depravity generation devices. It annoys me because I feel like GW has released a big laod of great looking leaders and then wanted to guarantee sales so they built the armies main summoning mechanic around those same leaders. I really hope they address it in the future and change how depravity is generated to at least make the rest of the army feel like its worth putting on the table at the start of a game; not just as battleline tax and summoning models.
I'm not against summoning as a mechanic, I just feel that depravity right now heavily favours you taking lots of multiwound leaders.
The only thing that will fix Slaanesh is changes to Slaanesh; Bonesplittaz in particular are about as close to auto-lose as an army can get in that matchup because of legions of 2 wound infantry easily farmed for depravity.
Liking the new Orruk book as well. I will probably use my 'regular' ork BoyBoyz as Bonesplitaz Boarboyz, and my Boar chariots as gore Gruntaz. Wish I could still use my 'regular' or Wyverns still though.
Also, not sure how many of you listen to the 'Stormcast' GW podcast, but in the latest one, Mark Harrison says one of the things he'd like to sculpt is more vampires. In particular, he calls out wanting to resculpt the Varghulf, which he mentions he feels is too small now. Obviously not confirming anything, but, I thought it was interesting, as the Varghulf is probably the last thing the FEC need to have made in plastic.
Kinda bummed that the Bonesplittaz have now a sub-faction dedicated to prevent some factions from their special rules. As a Nighthaunt player I don't believe it's fun for me to have Ethereal removed on my whole army, considering the point cost of my models is balanced around that bonus. GW is already doing anti-fun stuff with the new 40k codices, starting doing that in AoS, where I'm sheltering from the 40k madness currently going on, is worrying. If I was playing an army that removed their "Waaagh!!!" ability I'm uncertain my opponent would find it great.
Aaranis wrote: Kinda bummed that the Bonesplittaz have now a sub-faction dedicated to prevent some factions from their special rules. As a Nighthaunt player I don't believe it's fun for me to have Ethereal removed on my whole army, considering the point cost of my models is balanced around that bonus. GW is already doing anti-fun stuff with the new 40k codices, starting doing that in AoS, where I'm sheltering from the 40k madness currently going on, is worrying. If I was playing an army that removed their "Waaagh!!!" ability I'm uncertain my opponent would find it great.
Plus side, only 2 of their units have rend against anything that's not a monster.
Aaranis wrote: Kinda bummed that the Bonesplittaz have now a sub-faction dedicated to prevent some factions from their special rules. As a Nighthaunt player I don't believe it's fun for me to have Ethereal removed on my whole army, considering the point cost of my models is balanced around that bonus. GW is already doing anti-fun stuff with the new 40k codices, starting doing that in AoS, where I'm sheltering from the 40k madness currently going on, is worrying. If I was playing an army that removed their "Waaagh!!!" ability I'm uncertain my opponent would find it great.
Plus side, only 2 of their units have rend against anything that's not a monster.
Ah, I didn't know that. Was wondering about the amount of Rend they had actually. Thanks, it reassures me considerably, but they may have made changes so for now I'm still cautious.
Aaranis wrote: Kinda bummed that the Bonesplittaz have now a sub-faction dedicated to prevent some factions from their special rules. As a Nighthaunt player I don't believe it's fun for me to have Ethereal removed on my whole army, considering the point cost of my models is balanced around that bonus. GW is already doing anti-fun stuff with the new 40k codices, starting doing that in AoS, where I'm sheltering from the 40k madness currently going on, is worrying. If I was playing an army that removed their "Waaagh!!!" ability I'm uncertain my opponent would find it great.
Plus side, only 2 of their units have rend against anything that's not a monster.
Ah, I didn't know that. Was wondering about the amount of Rend they had actually. Thanks, it reassures me considerably, but they may have made changes so for now I'm still cautious.
Yeah, I would be more concerned about the ethereal thing if Bonesplittaz had even a decent amount of rend, but it's rather sparse in the army. Ignoring FnPs is a bigger deal; it impacts all Death forces and really hits certain units (Phoenix Guard) and factions (Nurgle) quite hard. But then think I am jaded because of Slaanesh depravity, which varies so wildly in effectiveness against different foes it makes this seem minor by comparison.
The Steam Tank thing definitely has my attention. Depending on how that works and how Kharadron can be brought it, we might be able to build some interesting all-vehicle armies.
skullking wrote: Liking the new Orruk book as well. I will probably use my 'regular' ork BoyBoyz as Bonesplitaz Boarboyz, and my Boar chariots as gore Gruntaz. Wish I could still use my 'regular' or Wyverns still though.
Also, not sure how many of you listen to the 'Stormcast' GW podcast, but in the latest one, Mark Harrison says one of the things he'd like to sculpt is more vampires. In particular, he calls out wanting to resculpt the Varghulf, which he mentions he feels is too small now. Obviously not confirming anything, but, I thought it was interesting, as the Varghulf is probably the last thing the FEC need to have made in plastic.
Sad thing being, if it is something that he wants to sculpt, meaning it hasn’t been done yet, then it could be a long time before we get it. The two year mark for example.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy with how the new orc book is looking, but I’m one of those who believes that it’s important to have ‘normal’ versions of races to act as a benchmark for the others. And at the moment, we have no normal orcs anymore. Don’t Ironjawz and Bonesplittas come from regular orcs rather than being spawned?
Of course it does leave a nice gap to be filled out later. Maybe they could do something really different with them. Orc skypirates for example. There’s the Grotbag scuttlers but I’ve also heard about airborne Waaaghs too.
Use 40k as an example; Ironjawz are Goth...Bonesplittas are a mixture of snake bites (traditionalists) and death skullz (warpaint and superstition), and the third type could be everyone else (cunning of bloodaxes, arrogance of bad moons, speed loving of evil suns and the looting aspect of death skullz).
Give them crude blackpowder weapons too, to really mark them out.
Aaranis wrote: Kinda bummed that the Bonesplittaz have now a sub-faction dedicated to prevent some factions from their special rules. As a Nighthaunt player I don't believe it's fun for me to have Ethereal removed on my whole army, considering the point cost of my models is balanced around that bonus. GW is already doing anti-fun stuff with the new 40k codices, starting doing that in AoS, where I'm sheltering from the 40k madness currently going on, is worrying. If I was playing an army that removed their "Waaagh!!!" ability I'm uncertain my opponent would find it great.
Plus side, only 2 of their units have rend against anything that's not a monster.
Ah, I didn't know that. Was wondering about the amount of Rend they had actually. Thanks, it reassures me considerably, but they may have made changes so for now I'm still cautious.
Exact implementation aside, I'd just be worried that the inclusion of such a rule is a sign the designers actually think having something like that in the game is a good idea.
These types of rules have been in GW games basically forever and have time and again proven to not work and be precious little fun for at least one player.
skullking wrote: Liking the new Orruk book as well. I will probably use my 'regular' ork BoyBoyz as Bonesplitaz Boarboyz, and my Boar chariots as gore Gruntaz. Wish I could still use my 'regular' or Wyverns still though.
Also, not sure how many of you listen to the 'Stormcast' GW podcast, but in the latest one, Mark Harrison says one of the things he'd like to sculpt is more vampires. In particular, he calls out wanting to resculpt the Varghulf, which he mentions he feels is too small now. Obviously not confirming anything, but, I thought it was interesting, as the Varghulf is probably the last thing the FEC need to have made in plastic.
Sad thing being, if it is something that he wants to sculpt, meaning it hasn’t been done yet, then it could be a long time before we get it. The two year mark for example.
Probably. I don't think he'd be allowed to talk about it if it was at the very least in planning, so we'll be stuck with the current Varghulf for a while.
Would be nice to get more vampires, but yeah, seems like we'll be waiting for a long time still.
And at the moment, we have no normal orcs anymore. Don’t Ironjawz and Bonesplittas come from regular orcs rather than being spawned?
I suspect that this will be explained in the new tome. Most likely by going "any normal, sane orruk wants to be ironjaw ,the loons or those too primitive to get metal for armor join up bonesplitters. Just a speculation, obviously, with the 'ardboys being the bog standard orruk now.
They're not, they're Freeguild. However, it will include gyrocopters, cannons, helblasters, rocket launchers and steamtanks. And the cogsmith, presumably.
Future War Cultist wrote: Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy with how the new orc book is looking, but I’m one of those who believes that it’s important to have ‘normal’ versions of races to act as a benchmark for the others. And at the moment, we have no normal orcs anymore. Don’t Ironjawz and Bonesplittas come from regular orcs rather than being spawned?
Of course it does leave a nice gap to be filled out later. Maybe they could do something really different with them. Orc skypirates for example. There’s the Grotbag scuttlers but I’ve also heard about airborne Waaaghs too.
Use 40k as an example; Ironjawz are Goth...Bonesplittas are a mixture of snake bites (traditionalists) and death skullz (warpaint and superstition), and the third type could be everyone else (cunning of bloodaxes, arrogance of bad moons, speed loving of evil suns and the looting aspect of death skullz).
Give them crude blackpowder weapons too, to really mark them out.
I don’t really see how Orc Skypirates are any more ‘normal orcs’ than Ironjawz or Bonesplittas. Also, Goffs are the ‘normal’ Orks of 40k, so by your comparison, Ironjawz are in AoS.
Future War Cultist wrote: Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy with how the new orc book is looking, but I’m one of those who believes that it’s important to have ‘normal’ versions of races to act as a benchmark for the others. And at the moment, we have no normal orcs anymore. Don’t Ironjawz and Bonesplittas come from regular orcs rather than being spawned?
Of course it does leave a nice gap to be filled out later. Maybe they could do something really different with them. Orc skypirates for example. There’s the Grotbag scuttlers but I’ve also heard about airborne Waaaghs too.
Use 40k as an example; Ironjawz are Goth...Bonesplittas are a mixture of snake bites (traditionalists) and death skullz (warpaint and superstition), and the third type could be everyone else (cunning of bloodaxes, arrogance of bad moons, speed loving of evil suns and the looting aspect of death skullz).
Give them crude blackpowder weapons too, to really mark them out.
I don’t really see how Orc Skypirates are any more ‘normal orcs’ than Ironjawz or Bonesplittas. Also, Goffs are the ‘normal’ Orks of 40k, so by your comparison, Ironjawz are in AoS.
There's already been mention of the Grotbag Scuttlers in both the Kharadron and Gloomspite battletomes as basically 'sky pirates'.
Future War Cultist wrote: Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy with how the new orc book is looking, but I’m one of those who believes that it’s important to have ‘normal’ versions of races to act as a benchmark for the others. And at the moment, we have no normal orcs anymore. Don’t Ironjawz and Bonesplittas come from regular orcs rather than being spawned?
Of course it does leave a nice gap to be filled out later. Maybe they could do something really different with them. Orc skypirates for example. There’s the Grotbag scuttlers but I’ve also heard about airborne Waaaghs too.
Use 40k as an example; Ironjawz are Goth...Bonesplittas are a mixture of snake bites (traditionalists) and death skullz (warpaint and superstition), and the third type could be everyone else (cunning of bloodaxes, arrogance of bad moons, speed loving of evil suns and the looting aspect of death skullz).
Give them crude blackpowder weapons too, to really mark them out.
I don’t really see how Orc Skypirates are any more ‘normal orcs’ than Ironjawz or Bonesplittas. Also, Goffs are the ‘normal’ Orks of 40k, so by your comparison, Ironjawz are in AoS.
There's already been mention of the Grotbag Scuttlers in both the Kharadron and Gloomspite battletomes as basically 'sky pirates'.
Future War Cultist wrote: Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy with how the new orc book is looking, but I’m one of those who believes that it’s important to have ‘normal’ versions of races to act as a benchmark for the others. And at the moment, we have no normal orcs anymore. Don’t Ironjawz and Bonesplittas come from regular orcs rather than being spawned?
Of course it does leave a nice gap to be filled out later. Maybe they could do something really different with them. Orc skypirates for example. There’s the Grotbag scuttlers but I’ve also heard about airborne Waaaghs too.
Use 40k as an example; Ironjawz are Goth...Bonesplittas are a mixture of snake bites (traditionalists) and death skullz (warpaint and superstition), and the third type could be everyone else (cunning of bloodaxes, arrogance of bad moons, speed loving of evil suns and the looting aspect of death skullz).
Give them crude blackpowder weapons too, to really mark them out.
I don’t really see how Orc Skypirates are any more ‘normal orcs’ than Ironjawz or Bonesplittas. Also, Goffs are the ‘normal’ Orks of 40k, so by your comparison, Ironjawz are in AoS.
There's already been mention of the Grotbag Scuttlers in both the Kharadron and Gloomspite battletomes as basically 'sky pirates'.
Right. I know. Nothing to do with my point though
But it does point out to Future War Cultist (who may or may not know) that the 'Sky Pirate' concept is already in the fluff.
OK, Orc sky pirates do wander off far off from normal orcs but I think my original point still stands. Having ‘normal’ orcs would be good and makes the others seem more normal. They could still have black powder weapons too; something similar to ogors (a mixture of artillery and weapons for high ranking characters).
EDIT:
I do know about the Scuttlers too. I’m actually hoping they arrive someday.
It looks like the Great Waaagh! Allegiance might go off the 'Orruk' keyword, if true means all the Greenskinz units (still legal in matched play) will be included, and they could release new ones straight into it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It looks like the Great Waaagh! Allegiance might go off the 'Orruk' keyword, if true means all the Greenskinz units (still legal in matched play) will be included, and they could release new ones straight into it.
That would be cool. I sort of figured they'd do something like 'Cites of Sigmar', where they'd combine the Greenskinz, Regular Goblins, (sourbreath) Trolls, and Manhunters, for some sort of 'Destruction Gribblies' army.
So just take a small unit of Freeguild guard, throw them at a Strong enemy unit. Have them die and them BAM +1 to hit and wound. I mean it seems to only work for that phase but it can be useful
I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter". Plus, I don't think it's really fair to have new armies getting these rules while older codices don't. It also pushes people competitively to play just the best sub-faction because of the traits. This Phoenicium trait looks really powerful compared to a measly +3" range with guns.
I don't want AoS to end up like current 40k, broken by a single release of a OP book full of every bonus in existence. It still looks far from being the case as the bonuses are much more reasonable and restricted to some army compositions but still.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: So just take a small unit of Freeguild guard, throw them at a Strong enemy unit. Have them die and them BAM +1 to hit and wound. I mean it seems to only work for that phase but it can be useful
I can work with that.
Depending on how many units you get in combat and your opponent, this might not work
Aaranis wrote: I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter". Plus, I don't think it's really fair to have new armies getting these rules while older codices don't. It also pushes people competitively to play just the best sub-faction because of the traits.
I get what you're saying, but I guess for me I'm happier having these subfaction-defining rules than just faction-scale rules alone. Although I'm also an idiot who assumes people are like me and play these army games primarily for the hobby, so rules that match the background are a boon because it means in-game experience matches the models / armies / fluff better. 100% agree that there's a balance problem in AOS that keeps getting worse, but that's not new. When I play AOS, it's a) to get minis on the board that I like that have rules that better represent them than more generic systems can, and b) for carnage. I want balance, I go to KOW.
That said, the first piece of advice I give people interested in AOS is to only consider collecting / playing an army with an updated battletome. You are missing out on a really significant amount of flavor - and power - otherwise. (He said full of anticipation for Tzeentch 2.0 )
Aaranis wrote: I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter".
Would it shock you to know AoS has been doing this since the Kharadron Overlords book in first edition? Personally I prefer it to the way they handled subfactions in the first Sylvaneth book.
Looks really strong, a flat +1 to wound and to hit because a small unit died ?
It is stronger in theory than in practice I think. The opponent is unlikely to target a small unit first anyways because weakening larger, nastier units is usually a better option. With this in play even more so. What it does do, IMO, is promote tactical thinking starting with list building going into how one engages.
Yeah I admit I'm wrong on some points just because I joined AoS recently, I'm really not knowledgeable about early releases and such. I too love having sub-faction traits, but only when they're balanced and encourage different tactics and list building. Not having 5 trash traits and 1 OP for example. It's all I'm asking them to do.
No info on an updated Nighthaunt book by the way ?
Aaranis wrote: I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter".
Would it shock you to know AoS has been doing this since the Kharadron Overlords book in first edition? Personally I prefer it to the way they handled subfactions in the first Sylvaneth book.
Yeah, I agree. I actually prefer this right now. I really like how it can open up completely different playstyles and the way units work with each other. My Nighthaunt don't have any such options, and it kind of blows. On the other hand, my Stormcast and Sylvaneth have a ton of options. The Sylvaneth is really great IMO, as they really change the playstyle and units you bring.
It can be tougher to balance, and sometimes some subfactions are better than the others, but usually they are pretty close to each other. It's been pretty rare that one is just far and away better than all those present that you only take it, though there is usually one that is a bit on the weaker side compared to the rest.
Part of the problem can also be that some of these sub factions can be easier to pull off than others, giving the appearance of being stronger when it's not really the case.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: So just take a small unit of Freeguild guard, throw them at a Strong enemy unit. Have them die and them BAM +1 to hit and wound. I mean it seems to only work for that phase but it can be useful
I can work with that.
Depending on how many units you get in combat and your opponent, this might not work
Maybe not the way I laid out, but lets say I have 4 Freeguild Guard in combat at the start of a turn and my opponent decides to resolve that combat and wipe them out first. He just inadvertently gave me a +1 bonus to hit and wound that round.
Is it something I can guarantee? No, probably not. But it is a bonus an opponent can give you accidentally that can give the an edge in the rest of the phase.
Mr Morden wrote:Vampires are all over the Mortal Realms including Azyr and the new Cites of Sigmar - when Nagash and Sigmar are not outright fighting they are probably given the same lattitude as Scourge privateers or Khainites.
Its fun that you can now have Blood Knights unit (Mecranaries) leading your Free Cities cavalry but yeah a Vampire led living army would be very nice and loresome, as you say Neferata has not changed and has her living and dead agents everywhere....
I used to have a Von Carstein army with plenty of Sylvanian militia. Ahh good old 6th(?).
Yeah, apparently Vlad was a pretty good ruler. Harsh, but fair.
I do miss the Old World. At least we still have Gotrek.
Aaranis wrote: I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter".
Would it shock you to know AoS has been doing this since the Kharadron Overlords book in first edition? Personally I prefer it to the way they handled subfactions in the first Sylvaneth book.
Yeah, I agree. I actually prefer this right now. I really like how it can open up completely different playstyles and the way units work with each other. My Nighthaunt don't have any such options, and it kind of blows. On the other hand, my Stormcast and Sylvaneth have a ton of options. The Sylvaneth is really great IMO, as they really change the playstyle and units you bring.
It can be tougher to balance, and sometimes some subfactions are better than the others, but usually they are pretty close to each other. It's been pretty rare that one is just far and away better than all those present that you only take it, though there is usually one that is a bit on the weaker side compared to the rest.
Part of the problem can also be that some of these sub factions can be easier to pull off than others, giving the appearance of being stronger when it's not really the case.
Agreed on all counts, IMO you summarized AoS subfactions quite well here.
The Phoenicium army seems to be for the people who used to like playing MSU melee armies in WHFB. Dark Elves players were often doing this in 6th and 7th edition.
Also Flagellants will profit from this, since they are only good with high casualties anyway.
Sounds interesting to me.
Aaranis wrote: I don't really like the way things are going with sub-faction specific army traits, it's too much reminiscing me of 40k where it's impossible to balance the units within a book because their worth increase or decrease when playing this or that "chapter".
Would it shock you to know AoS has been doing this since the Kharadron Overlords book in first edition? Personally I prefer it to the way they handled subfactions in the first Sylvaneth book.
Yeah, I agree. I actually prefer this right now. I really like how it can open up completely different playstyles and the way units work with each other. My Nighthaunt don't have any such options, and it kind of blows. On the other hand, my Stormcast and Sylvaneth have a ton of options. The Sylvaneth is really great IMO, as they really change the playstyle and units you bring.
It can be tougher to balance, and sometimes some subfactions are better than the others, but usually they are pretty close to each other. It's been pretty rare that one is just far and away better than all those present that you only take it, though there is usually one that is a bit on the weaker side compared to the rest.
Part of the problem can also be that some of these sub factions can be easier to pull off than others, giving the appearance of being stronger when it's not really the case.
Agreed on all counts, IMO you summarized AoS subfactions quite well here.
It's also important to remember that a core problem with the subfactions in 40K is that you end up with a heavy bias toward "soup" lists that combine several subfactions together. AoS just doesn't let you do that at all unless you agree to play with multiple armies. You get one "faction" for your army and that is it, though you can nearly always ally in options from outside. Though even then some subfactions don't let you - eg Skaven subfactions have to remain pure to their subfaction grouping to be allowed. This division and regulation of allied units and such drastically helps abuse what 40K suffers from in soup approaches and its something that I think 40K would benefit from greatly.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Don't the free cities undermine that though? I mean, are those just big books of soup, considering how you can field different factions together?
Not really because the Cities is a balanced single army with several different themed forces within it.
It's important to realise that whilst we might see the 5 or so different armies that comprise it, they are now one single force so far as AoS is concerned. Dwarves, Empire, High, Dark, Wood elves are all dead and gone. Whilst the remains of those armies are what makes up Free Cities as a single force with themes within. So its balanced out.
Also the different themed "cities" within the batteltome can only be fielded on their own. So if your city is themed around the Scourge Privateers (darkelf pirates) then you'll be tied into their allegiance bonuses and also their models. You might be able to bring allies from outside, but you'll be capped at 1/4 points of the army to include allies. Many allegiance abilities already only affect units with the right keyword which will typically be only from that subfaction.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Don't the free cities undermine that though? I mean, are those just big books of soup, considering how you can field different factions together?
From an outside perspective it can seem that way, however the factions it is merging together were previously over-split to the point of uselessness. It would be like if Space Marines were split into scouts, terminators & centurions, vehicles & techmarines, librarians, jump infantry & flyers, and foot marines, with each of those as a separate codex.
Honestly looking like its a very useful publication, plus they've also made it smaller so its even easier to pack. I think it also gives an idea of what GW considers "core" to the game at this stage, so it was interesting to see that mercenaries and the meeting engagements weren't in there, but I think part of that is still giving value to the books that many will have only just bought. Even so it means that that plus the GHB2019 would be all you'd need for varied games. For your bog standard no mercenaries 2K game its all in there.
Curious that they didn't go and add the FAQ and Errata pages to the book, that would have been a fine time to put them into print, even if it meant they had to make it battletome sized in dimensions and then add more pages. Granted many of the FAQ/Errata for specific armies would have been "wasted" and those documents do update pretty often so I can also see justification in GW not printing them in a hard copy only to have some fall out of date within weeks. Esp since they'd not have been able to include the content from the more recent tomes (accounting for printing time and shipping time).
Overall it looks like a very neat book and I'm glad to see GW taking this kind of step. Whilst we can argue about the "drip feed" approach to rules vs expansion of core rules in the end if GW releases one of these every year or two then it should keep the book load down. Plus lets not forget many of the expansion books often fall into the "store/club" copy situation where not everyone buys them.
Curious that they didn't go and add the FAQ and Errata pages to the book, that would have been a fine time to put them into print, even if it meant they had to make it battletome sized in dimensions and then add more pages. Granted many of the FAQ/Errata for specific armies would have been "wasted" and those documents do update pretty often so I can also see justification in GW not printing them in a hard copy only to have some fall out of date within weeks. Esp since they'd not have been able to include the content from the more recent tomes (accounting for printing time and shipping time).
Overall it looks like a very neat book and I'm glad to see GW taking this kind of step. Whilst we can argue about the "drip feed" approach to rules vs expansion of core rules in the end if GW releases one of these every year or two then it should keep the book load down. Plus lets not forget many of the expansion books often fall into the "store/club" copy situation where not everyone buys them.
Apparently, any errata that pertains to the rules in this book has already been edited in. That's what Ben Johnson said on the live stream.
Curious that they didn't go and add the FAQ and Errata pages to the book, that would have been a fine time to put them into print, even if it meant they had to make it battletome sized in dimensions and then add more pages. Granted many of the FAQ/Errata for specific armies would have been "wasted" and those documents do update pretty often so I can also see justification in GW not printing them in a hard copy only to have some fall out of date within weeks. Esp since they'd not have been able to include the content from the more recent tomes (accounting for printing time and shipping time).
Overall it looks like a very neat book and I'm glad to see GW taking this kind of step. Whilst we can argue about the "drip feed" approach to rules vs expansion of core rules in the end if GW releases one of these every year or two then it should keep the book load down. Plus lets not forget many of the expansion books often fall into the "store/club" copy situation where not everyone buys them.
Apparently, any errata that pertains to the rules in this book has already been edited in. That's what Ben Johnson said on the live stream.
Sotahullu wrote: Kinda interested on what you take as allies for CoS. Propably a lot but you never know.
Depends on the city.
There's a rule for Stormkeeps, letting you take a quarter of the army as Stormcast. Living City can do the same but with Sylvaneth and Tempest's Eye can do Overlords.
Also every order army can have stormcast; just like stormcast can ally any order army into their own forces.
However the 1/4 and allegiance ability limits tend to keep alliances like that muted. You either do it for a very specific benefit or for fun and the limits prevent spamming. Honestly its the kind of system that 40K really needs for space marines and Imperials to control the soup issue they've got going on
Overread wrote: Honestly its the kind of system that 40K really needs for space marines and Imperials to control the soup issue they've got going on
Sad thing is, they already had this system, in 6th edition. Not only some Imperial factions didn't play along very well, to bring allies you needed ally detachment that pretty much killed spamming even without points limits. Today, when you're limited to 3 detachments in matched play this would work even better, you can't fit loyal 32 in ally detachment and cherrypicking subfactions can't really be combined with allies at all, killing two birds with one stone...
Overread wrote: Also every order army can have stormcast; just like stormcast can ally any order army into their own forces.
However the 1/4 and allegiance ability limits tend to keep alliances like that muted. You either do it for a very specific benefit or for fun and the limits prevent spamming. Honestly its the kind of system that 40K really needs for space marines and Imperials to control the soup issue they've got going on
They said in the beginning that every city can bring Stormcast and when they do the Stormcast get the city’s keyword and abilities. That’s not just the usual allying. I Wish my Sylvaneth could do that with the Stormcast I own. Still bummed the new book didn’t have that joint Sylvaneth/Stormcast Battalion the old one did.
Overread wrote: Also every order army can have stormcast; just like stormcast can ally any order army into their own forces.
However the 1/4 and allegiance ability limits tend to keep alliances like that muted. You either do it for a very specific benefit or for fun and the limits prevent spamming. Honestly its the kind of system that 40K really needs for space marines and Imperials to control the soup issue they've got going on
They said in the beginning that every city can bring Stormcast and when they do the Stormcast get the city’s keyword and abilities. That’s not just the usual allying. I Wish my Sylvaneth could do that with the Stormcast I own. Still bummed the new book didn’t have that joint Sylvaneth/Stormcast Battalion the old one did.
Unclear why you can't. Living City seems to do exactly that:
WarCom wrote:This wild and vibrant city was built as a monument to the alliance between Alarielle the Everqueen and Sigmar. Be sure to visit the Oakenspire, the foremost stronghold of the Ghyran Guard Stormhost, who fight alongside the surprisingly even-tempered Oakenbrow Sylvaneth.
Are stormhost saddled with super specific special rules based on their color scheme, like space marines?
Yes, along with this FAQ which is most likely ignored in friendly play (tournaments are another matter):
Q: Is it okay to use ‘proxy’ models to stand in for models that I do not have but want to use in a game? For example, using a Slaughterpriest model to represent a Bloodsecrator, or using Stormcast Eternals models painted in the colours of the Hammers of Sigmar to represent Stormcast Eternals from a different warrior chamber?
A: The use of proxy models is generally frowned upon, because doing so can confuse the other players (and sometimes even yourself), and because it spoils the spectacle and aesthetic of the game. Because of this, you can only use proxy models if you’ve gained your opponent’s permission to do so before the game begins.
Are stormhost saddled with super specific special rules based on their color scheme, like space marines?
Yet the battle art shows Hallowed Knights fighting alongside The Living City. Which is fine for me as my Hallowed Knight Chamber, the Nightbreakers have been stationed in Ghyran since the Realmgate Wars.
Are stormhost saddled with super specific special rules based on their color scheme, like space marines?
There are stormhost specific rules but not even the grand tournament at Warhammer world requires specific colour schemes now. The community has been pretty strongly against it.
Edit stormcadt also lose their stormhost abilities if they are in cities of sigmar.
Are stormhost saddled with super specific special rules based on their color scheme, like space marines?
Yes, along with this FAQ which is most likely ignored in friendly play (tournaments are another matter):
Q: Is it okay to use ‘proxy’ models to stand in for models that I do not have but want to use in a game? For example, using a Slaughterpriest model to represent a Bloodsecrator, or using Stormcast Eternals models painted in the colours of the Hammers of Sigmar to represent Stormcast Eternals from a different warrior chamber?
A: The use of proxy models is generally frowned upon, because doing so can confuse the other players (and sometimes even yourself), and because it spoils the spectacle and aesthetic of the game. Because of this, you can only use proxy models if you’ve gained your opponent’s permission to do so before the game begins.
FWIWGW don't care. I've played on Warhammer Live at a GT with different stormhost painting schemes.
Honestly the whole paint thing will never stick. Heck some armies the paint schemes are hardly different from each other (Daughters of Khaine they are pretty much identical save for marginal changes in the shade of red); whilst most players can't ID an official scheme army past Space Marines (who not only have specific schemes but unique models and codex for their subfactions - unlike every other army that uses identical models and the same battletome/codex).
It also leaves anyone who uses a custom scheme with an unfair advantage since they could use whatever rules they'd like, whilst anyone who painted an official scheme would be saddled with that limitation (a huge problem for newbies who are far more likely to follow the studio design scheme).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly the whole paint thing will never stick. Heck some armies the paint schemes are hardly different from each other (Daughters of Khaine they are pretty much identical save for marginal changes in the shade of red); whilst most players can't ID an official scheme army past Space Marines (who not only have specific schemes but unique models and codex for their subfactions - unlike every other army that uses identical models and the same battletome/codex).
It also leaves anyone who uses a custom scheme with an unfair advantage since they could use whatever rules they'd like, whilst anyone who painted an official scheme would be saddled with that limitation (a huge problem for newbies who are far more likely to follow the studio design scheme).
Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.
The one way they have gotten around this with Stormhosts is introduce “Stormhost Only” Heroes. Like Vandus has to be part of a Hammers Stormhost, Gardus has to be a Hallowed Knight, and that Sacrosanct guy from the last WD for Anvils
Cataphract wrote: Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.
And there is an official document from Games Workshop which says otherwise. Again, most players won't have a problem with it just so long as you're not being an arse about it. Tournaments may or may not enforce it and events at Warhammer World definitely will enforce it.
Just FYI, several reviews are out for Orruk Warclans.
Quite a lot of small changes that are cumulatively quite significant. For instance I don't see anything impressive in the Ironjawz battalions. Weapon profiles were significantly consolidated and points were adjusted significantly for megabosses and Ard boys.
Cataphract wrote: Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.
And there is an official document from Games Workshop which says otherwise. Again, most players won't have a problem with it just so long as you're not being an arse about it. Tournaments may or may not enforce it and events at Warhammer World definitely will enforce it.
That answer in that FAQ is straight up BS. They are equating using one model for other model with paint scheme when everybody makes a distinction between the two. Specifically because a model is a model but the rules associate with a paint scheme come and go, or stop existing without any internal logic for GW part.
Cataphract wrote: Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.
And there is an official document from Games Workshop which says otherwise. Again, most players won't have a problem with it just so long as you're not being an arse about it. Tournaments may or may not enforce it and events at Warhammer World definitely will enforce it.
That answer in that FAQ is straight up BS. They are equating using one model for other model with paint scheme when everybody makes a distinction between the two. Specifically because a model is a model but the rules associate with a paint scheme come and go, or stop existing without any internal logic for GW part.
You don't have to like it or agree with it or even force people to abide by it, but from GW's position it's completely logical. If you assume that GW was concerned with the integrity of their setting, which is debatable, but if you assume that, there really is no difference between a model and a color scheme. Both visually establish personal and/or faction identity. A Hammer of Sigmar looks like this and behaves like this, a Hallowed Knight looks like that and behaves like that. That's all in the color scheme (except for the chambers that have an upgrade sprue) for now. You may not care how your opponent paints their models. I may not mind if my opponent selects different rules from what their models suggest. But as the people that try to create and present a coherent setting, from GW's perspective it is no less important that what they decide Hammers of Sigmar to be to be represented both by the correct model and the correct color scheme. Because any deviation from that is simply not a Hammer of Sigmar, or else needs dedicated background to explain the deviation.
Execution? That changes over time. Rules change. Color schemes change. Models change. Drawing on 40k as that has a longer history than Age of Sigmar, look at the Ultramarines. Let's not even get into Primaris, just traditional Marines. Their rules change from edition to edition, as you say. But at one point at the beginning of 4th ed, so did their color scheme. They went from a medium blue with non-metallic trim on their shoulder pads, specifically yellow for the poster boy company, to a darker blue with metallic (gold in that case) trim. They were Ultramarines before, and they were Ultramarines after. But it's not like you would have all of a sudden mistaken them for Crimson Fists. Both looked like Ultramarines (in their specific case that's obviously helped by the chapter badge).
Models, too, have changed from Rogue Trader beakies over austere 2nd and 3rd ed Marines taking on a modern form to the latest bling boys. And Marines are only a pretty small offender here. Just look at how different the various Tyranid incarnations are. Give Age of Sigmar enough time and you'll find that a model is not in fact a model. But just like the Ultramarine color scheme a new model will be the recognizable new version of the old model.
That's the important bit here. GW relies on this kind of continuity of identity and it can't be surprising that they take any visual aspect as seriously as another. That's not BS. That's creating a consistent and recognizable setting.
People always misinterpreted the paint scheme thing anyways. All it meant was if your army was painted as a specific stormhost you couldn't use it as another specific stormhost. Custom paint scheme? Whatever you want. Want to use your Hammers painted SCE as generic? Cool. All you couldn't do is have an army painted as Hammers using the rules for Anvils of the Heldenhammer, and the like.
NinthMusketeer wrote: People always misinterpreted the paint scheme thing anyways. All it meant was if your army was painted as a specific stormhost you couldn't use it as another specific stormhost. Custom paint scheme? Whatever you want. Want to use your Hammers painted SCE as generic? Cool. All you couldn't do is have an army painted as Hammers using the rules for Anvils of the Heldenhammer, and the like.
The problem with that is GW releases cool paint schemes for specific subfactions of the fluff before any subfaction rules were given to them, even before subfaction rules existed both for AoS or 40k.
And you end up with problems like the new chapter rules for space marines were you have hundreds of official sucessor chapters that cover nearly all paint schemes one could come up with, and many are very cool, and then BLAM, theres rules for you that mabye you don't even like or even knew there would exist , SORRY NO TAKEBACKS!
A model is very different. A catapult is a catapult it can be OP it can suck ass but you know what you are getting from the first moment you buy it. And until it gets discontinued. But maybe next edition GW just scraps subfaction rules alltogether or changes how they totally work, you can't adapt to that in any sensible way.
And I know, you are just rationalizing GW part, you haven't stated you support it (And even if you support it, theres nothing bad with that, we all have our opinions). I just wanted to explain why I "hate" (Hate is a strong word but my english is limited), GW new approach with this. it goes agaisnt all of the original warhammer ethos. But many many things nu-GW is doing goes against the original spirit of his games.
Cataphract wrote: Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.
And there is an official document from Games Workshop which says otherwise. Again, most players won't have a problem with it just so long as you're not being an arse about it. Tournaments may or may not enforce it and events at Warhammer World definitely will enforce it.
That answer in that FAQ is straight up BS. They are equating using one model for other model with paint scheme when everybody makes a distinction between the two. Specifically because a model is a model but the rules associate with a paint scheme come and go, or stop existing without any internal logic for GW part.
You don't have to like it or agree with it or even force people to abide by it, but from GW's position it's completely logical. If you assume that GW was concerned with the integrity of their setting, which is debatable, but if you assume that, there really is no difference between a model and a color scheme. Both visually establish personal and/or faction identity. A Hammer of Sigmar looks like this and behaves like this, a Hallowed Knight looks like that and behaves like that. That's all in the color scheme (except for the chambers that have an upgrade sprue) for now. You may not care how your opponent paints their models. I may not mind if my opponent selects different rules from what their models suggest. But as the people that try to create and present a coherent setting, from GW's perspective it is no less important that what they decide Hammers of Sigmar to be to be represented both by the correct model and the correct color scheme. Because any deviation from that is simply not a Hammer of Sigmar, or else needs dedicated background to explain the deviation.
Execution? That changes over time. Rules change. Color schemes change. Models change. Drawing on 40k as that has a longer history than Age of Sigmar, look at the Ultramarines. Let's not even get into Primaris, just traditional Marines. Their rules change from edition to edition, as you say. But at one point at the beginning of 4th ed, so did their color scheme. They went from a medium blue with non-metallic trim on their shoulder pads, specifically yellow for the poster boy company, to a darker blue with metallic (gold in that case) trim. They were Ultramarines before, and they were Ultramarines after. But it's not like you would have all of a sudden mistaken them for Crimson Fists. Both looked like Ultramarines (in their specific case that's obviously helped by the chapter badge).
Models, too, have changed from Rogue Trader beakies over austere 2nd and 3rd ed Marines taking on a modern form to the latest bling boys. And Marines are only a pretty small offender here. Just look at how different the various Tyranid incarnations are. Give Age of Sigmar enough time and you'll find that a model is not in fact a model. But just like the Ultramarine color scheme a new model will be the recognizable new version of the old model.
That's the important bit here. GW relies on this kind of continuity of identity and it can't be surprising that they take any visual aspect as seriously as another. That's not BS. That's creating a consistent and recognizable setting.
Yeah thats all and good but at the same time GW is the one that says that their rules are just guidelines like the pirate code, not strict rules, and setting comes before the game. A game, they themselves have said is nothing more than an excuse to forge your own narrative (And this they have said in recent White Dwarfs). So by that, THEIR logic, paint scheme and even Models should have no relation with the rules you use to represent, and well, they actually don't, all the conversions are just examples , and all the GW armies and conversion of their own staff "Yeah maybe this looks like Orks but they are actually a Tyranid army by rules, how cool!"
Not only that but many sub-armies (barring space marines) are often just a few bonuses in combat of a different type. So you might have one Stormcast host who get a +1 to hit with ranged weapons whilst another gets a bonus charge distance boost.
Clearly if you built your army close combat heavy you'd want the latter, whilst if you decide one evening to change to ranged you'd really not want to have to buy and build and paint an entire new stormhost in official colours just for a +1 to hit bonus.
Marines are a bit different because each of the different chapters (At least the major ones) has unique models, unique sculpts and such. That said even then if you've a generic block of marines it shoudln't matter what colour they are.
Overread wrote: Not only that but many sub-armies (barring space marines) are often just a few bonuses in combat of a different type. So you might have one Stormcast host who get a +1 to hit with ranged weapons whilst another gets a bonus charge distance boost.
Clearly if you built your army close combat heavy you'd want the latter, whilst if you decide one evening to change to ranged you'd really not want to have to buy and build and paint an entire new stormhost in official colours just for a +1 to hit bonus.
Marines are a bit different because each of the different chapters (At least the major ones) has unique models, unique sculpts and such. That said even then if you've a generic block of marines it shoudln't matter what colour they are.
i see subfactions as a way to add a little variation in your army. And with how limited many new armies are in AoS, with so many little options, like Ironjawz, THATS sorely needed. To have that limited by the paint scheme I like? Feth off.
NinthMusketeer wrote: People always misinterpreted the paint scheme thing anyways. All it meant was if your army was painted as a specific stormhost you couldn't use it as another specific stormhost. Custom paint scheme? Whatever you want. Want to use your Hammers painted SCE as generic? Cool. All you couldn't do is have an army painted as Hammers using the rules for Anvils of the Heldenhammer, and the like.
It's still dumb. Using a paint scheme shouldn't tie you permanently tie your ability to use certain rules. You just select the Stormhost you are using from the Warscroll builder, and tell your opponent what host you are playing.
FWIWs, I don't think I've ever seen anyone even try to enforce it, even at the Citadel.
NinthMusketeer wrote: People always misinterpreted the paint scheme thing anyways. All it meant was if your army was painted as a specific stormhost you couldn't use it as another specific stormhost. Custom paint scheme? Whatever you want. Want to use your Hammers painted SCE as generic? Cool. All you couldn't do is have an army painted as Hammers using the rules for Anvils of the Heldenhammer, and the like.
It's still dumb. Using a paint scheme shouldn't tie you permanently tie your ability to use certain rules. You just select the Stormhost you are using from the Warscroll builder, and tell your opponent what host you are playing.
FWIWs, I don't think I've ever seen anyone even try to enforce it, even at the Citadel.
Yup. I've never even seen anyone not enforce it, because I've never seen a situation where the rule would have applied. The only times I have seen official paint schemes is with people using them as that specific army or as generic. It's an over-specific rule to begin with and I'm glad to see GW phasing it out as quickly as they introduced it.
Cataphract wrote: Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.
And there is an official document from Games Workshop which says otherwise. Again, most players won't have a problem with it just so long as you're not being an arse about it. Tournaments may or may not enforce it and events at Warhammer World definitely will enforce it.
That answer in that FAQ is straight up BS. They are equating using one model for other model with paint scheme when everybody makes a distinction between the two. Specifically because a model is a model but the rules associate with a paint scheme come and go, or stop existing without any internal logic for GW part.
You don't have to like it or agree with it or even force people to abide by it, but from GW's position it's completely logical. If you assume that GW was concerned with the integrity of their setting, which is debatable, but if you assume that, there really is no difference between a model and a color scheme. Both visually establish personal and/or faction identity. A Hammer of Sigmar looks like this and behaves like this, a Hallowed Knight looks like that and behaves like that. That's all in the color scheme (except for the chambers that have an upgrade sprue) for now. You may not care how your opponent paints their models. I may not mind if my opponent selects different rules from what their models suggest. But as the people that try to create and present a coherent setting, from GW's perspective it is no less important that what they decide Hammers of Sigmar to be to be represented both by the correct model and the correct color scheme. Because any deviation from that is simply not a Hammer of Sigmar, or else needs dedicated background to explain the deviation.
Execution? That changes over time. Rules change. Color schemes change. Models change. Drawing on 40k as that has a longer history than Age of Sigmar, look at the Ultramarines. Let's not even get into Primaris, just traditional Marines. Their rules change from edition to edition, as you say. But at one point at the beginning of 4th ed, so did their color scheme. They went from a medium blue with non-metallic trim on their shoulder pads, specifically yellow for the poster boy company, to a darker blue with metallic (gold in that case) trim. They were Ultramarines before, and they were Ultramarines after. But it's not like you would have all of a sudden mistaken them for Crimson Fists. Both looked like Ultramarines (in their specific case that's obviously helped by the chapter badge).
Models, too, have changed from Rogue Trader beakies over austere 2nd and 3rd ed Marines taking on a modern form to the latest bling boys. And Marines are only a pretty small offender here. Just look at how different the various Tyranid incarnations are. Give Age of Sigmar enough time and you'll find that a model is not in fact a model. But just like the Ultramarine color scheme a new model will be the recognizable new version of the old model.
That's the important bit here. GW relies on this kind of continuity of identity and it can't be surprising that they take any visual aspect as seriously as another. That's not BS. That's creating a consistent and recognizable setting.
Yeah thats all and good but at the same time GW is the one that says that their rules are just guidelines like the pirate code, not strict rules, and setting comes before the game. A game, they themselves have said is nothing more than an excuse to forge your own narrative (And this they have said in recent White Dwarfs). So by that, THEIR logic, paint scheme and even Models should have no relation with the rules you use to represent, and well, they actually don't, all the conversions are just examples , and all the GW armies and conversion of their own staff "Yeah maybe this looks like Orks but they are actually a Tyranid army by rules, how cool!"
Isn't that just what they're saying in the FAQ? "This is our official stance, but feel free to agree with your opponent to do things differently". There's always mention of changing rules to your liking in GW rule books early on to let people know the rules provided by GW are just a starting point. Why highlight that again in an FAQ something meant to provide clarification on an unclear issue, if GW doesn't intend for people to break with a rule that for all we know is there as a formality that they feel they have to follow, but have no intention of forcing on players?
It just seems to me that people who take issue with the color scheme restriction are so quick to latch on to the restrictive part of that FAQ without stopping to think why GW explicitly provides a way around it in the second part of their answer.
That list has been doing the rounds for a while now. The only question mark is that we've not seen any hint of spells in the big leak that happened a short while back for Bonereapers (though it did confirm the terrain). The lack of terrain and spells for both orruks and cities was an oddity and could have been linked to the trade issues in the past that plagued sylvaneth or might just be blind luck - though it was odd, esp for Orruks which one would have thought would have been a totally normal Battletome.
Overread wrote: That list has been doing the rounds for a while now. The only question mark is that we've not seen any hint of spells in the big leak that happened a short while back for Bonereapers (though it did confirm the terrain). The lack of terrain and spells for both orruks and cities was an oddity and could have been linked to the trade issues in the past that plagued sylvaneth or might just be blind luck - though it was odd, esp for Orruks which one would have thought would have been a totally normal Battletome.
I'm not entirely convinced the free cities book isnt just GWs way of giving all those models a fond farewell before the embark on bold new directions for the mortal forces of order. Which is why no spells or terrain.
Overread wrote: That list has been doing the rounds for a while now. The only question mark is that we've not seen any hint of spells in the big leak that happened a short while back for Bonereapers (though it did confirm the terrain). The lack of terrain and spells for both orruks and cities was an oddity and could have been linked to the trade issues in the past that plagued sylvaneth or might just be blind luck - though it was odd, esp for Orruks which one would have thought would have been a totally normal Battletome.
I'm not entirely convinced the free cities book isn't just GWs way of giving all those models a fond farewell before the embark on bold new directions for the mortal forces of order. Which is why no spells or terrain.
I think if GW were doing that they'd have just released a big "Legends" update. Giving them a Battletome for 2.0 confirms that they will hang around. Now they might do it a bit like they've done with Legions of Nagash and steadily over time release updated armies (new models and using existing ones) that focus on specific groups of species/factions within the Cities block. Much like how Nighthaunt and Bonereapers are "poaching" units out of Legions of Nagash steadily and a likely Vampire based battletome could easily take another big chunk of vampiric and skeleton warriors out of the block as well.
Overread wrote: That list has been doing the rounds for a while now. The only question mark is that we've not seen any hint of spells in the big leak that happened a short while back for Bonereapers (though it did confirm the terrain). The lack of terrain and spells for both orruks and cities was an oddity and could have been linked to the trade issues in the past that plagued sylvaneth or might just be blind luck - though it was odd, esp for Orruks which one would have thought would have been a totally normal Battletome.
I'm not entirely convinced the free cities book isnt just GWs way of giving all those models a fond farewell before the embark on bold new directions for the mortal forces of order. Which is why no spells or terrain.
I have a sad feeling that you’re probably right. And that they’ll be simply maintained or even wound down going forward.
Overread wrote: That list has been doing the rounds for a while now. The only question mark is that we've not seen any hint of spells in the big leak that happened a short while back for Bonereapers (though it did confirm the terrain). The lack of terrain and spells for both orruks and cities was an oddity and could have been linked to the trade issues in the past that plagued sylvaneth or might just be blind luck - though it was odd, esp for Orruks which one would have thought would have been a totally normal Battletome.
I'm not entirely convinced the free cities book isn't just GWs way of giving all those models a fond farewell before the embark on bold new directions for the mortal forces of order. Which is why no spells or terrain.
I think if GW were doing that they'd have just released a big "Legends" update. Giving them a Battletome for 2.0 confirms that they will hang around. Now they might do it a bit like they've done with Legions of Nagash and steadily over time release updated armies (new models and using existing ones) that focus on specific groups of species/factions within the Cities block. Much like how Nighthaunt and Bonereapers are "poaching" units out of Legions of Nagash steadily and a likely Vampire based battletome could easily take another big chunk of vampiric and skeleton warriors out of the block as well.
Lets also not forget that most AoS armies didn't get much anyway this time around. Daughters of Khaine, Idoneth and a few others still don't have any Endless Spells/terrain features.
Meanwhile many armies often only got one new model IF they were lucky. Even a massive army like Skaven, who are very popular, and who had a lot of early new sculpts actually made (just on the wrong mould); and thus could have been reworked into new moulds;only got one new model.
AoS needs updates for almost every army. Old established ones like Seraphon and Skaven have a large legacy of old finecast, metal and plastics to update; whilst armies like Fyreslayers and Flesheaters need way more models adding to bolster their diversity and range of models.
GW just can't give them all a big update. Even some of the bigger updates like Slaanesh were limited (Slaanesh got some fantastic models, but almost all were leader class with only one updated troop sculpt in the fiends - nothing new).
Everyone wants a Gloomspite level release, but GW can't give every army that. Instead we'll likely see updates rolled out just like 40K is getting now for Chaos and Eldar. Both big block releases and drawn out staggered "campaign" releases like Eldar are getting.
I can't see GW wanting to rock the boat and remove whole swathes of armies and models from 2.0 AoS. It would dilute the good will and consumer confidence that they've had to restore since its launch.
Idoneth did get terrain, and just about every army from Soul Wars onwards got either spells, terrain, or both. I don't think either will be squatted, but I do think we won't see either orruks or CoS developed much till they get all their new and exciting plans out of the way. With Ogors coming up, the only "old" army left to refurb is slaves to chaos too, and unlike orruks, StD is kind of pivotal to the plot.
Cronch wrote: Idoneth did get terrain, and just about every army from Soul Wars onwards got either spells, terrain, or both. I don't think either will be squatted, but I do think we won't see either orruks or CoS developed much till they get all their new and exciting plans out of the way. With Ogors coming up, the only "old" army left to refurb is slaves to chaos too, and unlike orruks, StD is kind of pivotal to the plot.
Slaves have also had 6 brand new blocks of infantry added through Warcry with 2 more to come. They've also had the furies updated and raptors added, again through Warcry. Plus there is the new chaos beast being shown off which likely will be either Beasts of Chaos or Slaves as well. So Slaves should be a pretty epic release on its own.
And yes Slaves is the LAST big update for AoS. Thereafter there's forces like Seraphon and KO who need a new Tome for 2.0, but are unlikely to get anything beyond spells and terrain. Sadly I don't think we'll see them until 2020 and its going to be a bit of a squeeze to fit Ogres in at the end of the year after the big release of Sisters of Battle in November. Though I really hope Ogres DO make it in this year as that ends the year on a really great position of only 1 outstanding ancient army to update (Slaves)
Overread wrote: And yes Slaves is the LAST big update for AoS. Thereafter there's forces like Seraphon and KO who need a new Tome for 2.0, but are unlikely to get anything beyond spells and terrain. Sadly I don't think we'll see them until 2020 and its going to be a bit of a squeeze to fit Ogres in at the end of the year after the big release of Sisters of Battle in November. Though I really hope Ogres DO make it in this year as that ends the year on a really great position of only 1 outstanding ancient army to update (Slaves)
Shout out to Tizz, from me over here getting ready to go all limited edition battletome up on it.
Some of those really make this feel like a placeholder book. Midnight especially- I have no idea what some of the bits in those conversions are even from.
The Tempest Blades unit, not shown and described as 'monastic' Greatswords that never flee doesn't fit the look of the current kit or its rules.
I can't see GW wanting to rock the boat and remove whole swathes of armies and models from 2.0 AoS. It would dilute the good will and consumer confidence that they've had to restore since its launch.
Except... they literally just did that in preparation for this book. They removed roughly 1/3 of the kits available to the 'free peoples' or whatever you want to call them. I don't know how that wouldn't qualify as rocking the boat and removing whole swathes.
Following up with tiny releases reinforce the idea that there isn't much confidence or movement in either system. Given that we've come around to the end of the codex/army book cycle in both editions I'm at the point that I don't want to buy anything (especially books), since I don't know what will get replaced, and what will get wildly revised rules, what will not get rules updates despite desperately needing them, or just get dropped. Its a weird stage for both games to be in.
In other news, anyone else notice the Hurricanum gets +1 to cast if the battle is taking place in Azyr? We always knew it was inevitable but mayhaps the fluff will bring war there sooner than we thought. Personally I was guessing it would happen for 3rd edition, but maybe it will be a part of Forbidden Power instead.
Overread wrote: I think if GW were doing that they'd have just released a big "Legends" update.
Though with Cities now out, we're probably still due for a big Legends update anyway for Empire, Dwarfs, High Elves, and maybe even Wood Elves. I wonder how long until those come out and if they'll come with points? Since this book set my Dwarfs back even farther, I'm now looking forward to Legends especially since GW said they'd be getting points in the future.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In other news, anyone else notice the Hurricanum gets +1 to cast if the battle is taking place in Azyr? We always knew it was inevitable but mayhaps the fluff will bring war there sooner than we thought. Personally I was guessing it would happen for 3rd edition, but maybe it will be a part of Forbidden Power instead.
Technically war has happened there even during the Age of Chaos. If I recall right Orks had already invested some regions and Stormcast had to settle issues with other races/species as well. Skaven also had a back door into the realm for a long while though I don't think they did much save spy
NinthMusketeer wrote: In other news, anyone else notice the Hurricanum gets +1 to cast if the battle is taking place in Azyr? We always knew it was inevitable but mayhaps the fluff will bring war there sooner than we thought. Personally I was guessing it would happen for 3rd edition, but maybe it will be a part of Forbidden Power instead.
Technically war has happened there even during the Age of Chaos. If I recall right Orks had already invested some regions and Stormcast had to settle issues with other races/species as well. Skaven also had a back door into the realm for a long while though I don't think they did much save spy
Cronch wrote: Idoneth did get terrain, and just about every army from Soul Wars onwards got either spells, terrain, or both. I don't think either will be squatted, but I do think we won't see either orruks or CoS developed much till they get all their new and exciting plans out of the way. With Ogors coming up, the only "old" army left to refurb is slaves to chaos too, and unlike orruks, StD is kind of pivotal to the plot.
Slaves have also had 6 brand new blocks of infantry added through Warcry with 2 more to come. They've also had the furies updated and raptors added, again through Warcry. Plus there is the new chaos beast being shown off which likely will be either Beasts of Chaos or Slaves as well. So Slaves should be a pretty epic release on its own.
And yes Slaves is the LAST big update for AoS. Thereafter there's forces like Seraphon and KO who need a new Tome for 2.0, but are unlikely to get anything beyond spells and terrain. Sadly I don't think we'll see them until 2020 and its going to be a bit of a squeeze to fit Ogres in at the end of the year after the big release of Sisters of Battle in November. Though I really hope Ogres DO make it in this year as that ends the year on a really great position of only 1 outstanding ancient army to update (Slaves)
I agree, I think Slaves will probably not be as big of a release as most are anticipating because of the 6 new Warcry bands (plus 2 more on the way), the new Cyclops, and new Chaos Furies/Raptors. The Chariot, Warshrine, Marauder Horsemen, Manticore Lord, Daemon Prince, and plastic heroes are all pretty new. I imagine what will happen with Slaves is Everchosen will be folded into StD, all the new Warcry bands will have rules, as will the Furies/Raptors/Cyclops. I imagine the new releases will be something along the lines of Endless Spells, A terrain feature, a new Chaos Warriors/Varanguard on Foot Kit, maybe a kit of Darkoath infantry, and a character or two. Honestly I think that would be a pretty complete and diverse army.......the only thing that absolutely needs an update are the very dated Chaos Warriors, especially as they are one of the most iconic things in Warhammer.
I have a sad feeling that you’re probably right. And that they’ll be simply maintained or even wound down going forward.
Then again, I’m hoping that Overread is right.
I actually hope I'm right, and my greatest hope is a development in the storyline where order humans don't always work with Sigmar or his sigmarines, and that make their own way in the world(s).
Likewise, I've been waiting since the beginning for new styles of mortal.humans, as I've never liked aesthetic of the empire, and was.something that kept.me.away from classic warhammer.fantasy.
Liege-Kavaloi are mounted generals, which are a generic leader unit (take as many as you want up to the leader limit).
However of them there's a hero Arch-Kavalos Zandtos who is the mighty guy we saw in the hazy leak photos
The article also confirms that both those leader options are built from the same kit. For me this is fantastic as I really liked that mounted lord so to have one not just as a hero, but also having a generic option is great!
There is also specific mention that "Nagash, Arkhan the Black and Morghasts can all be included in an Ossirarch Bonereapers force" at the end of the article. It doesn't mention in what capacity, but it confirms what we've seen in the leak photos, plus also suggests taht Arkhan is the only mortarch present.
I wonder if there's any optional parts available for the generic ones. I notice he's got a pile of spikes on his back where the hero has his sword instead.
I'm glad there's a warrior generic leader, the other leader models that we've seen appeared to be a bit more magical based (though the reaper might not be). So having a nice generic fighting model as a leader is a great thing.
I also wonder if having a cavalry leader this means we might see more mounted units in the future, esp since right now there's only one mounted troop option (which appears to have either swords or spears)
Also small detail I just noticed - the two mounts not only have different heads, but the feet are also different. The hero has a more clawed foot whilst the generic has hoofed feet. That suggests that the foot part is glued on so that could make for some interesting posing options. Also easy but of customising to mix and match the two (hind hooves, fore claws)
To be honest the only reason I kept my VC army from fantasy was to use Nagash and actually the only reason I’ve got legions of Nagash as an AoS force. But this new death army is really catching my attention and I think may be my first official “new” AoS army if I can use the big guy as well
Love him. Really well designed in my eyes, tons of detail yet it doesn't feel too busy. The mount looks exotic without being silly, the armor & weapons really carry the Nagash aesthetic, and the model looks like a martial commander. My favorite of what they've previewed so far.
Liege-Kavaloi are mounted generals, which are a generic leader unit (take as many as you want up to the leader limit).
However of them there's a hero Arch-Kavalos Zandtos who is the mighty guy we saw in the hazy leak photos
The article also confirms that both those leader options are built from the same kit. For me this is fantastic as I really liked that mounted lord so to have one not just as a hero, but also having a generic option is great!
There is also specific mention that "Nagash, Arkhan the Black and Morghasts can all be included in an Ossirarch Bonereapers force" at the end of the article. It doesn't mention in what capacity, but it confirms what we've seen in the leak photos, plus also suggests taht Arkhan is the only mortarch present.
Makes sense too - remember Ossiarchs are built and sculpted from bone (and likely other stuff). When you consider their overall shape and the structure its clear that, whilst they might use bones in the middle of battle for replacement/emergency troops (we don't yet fully know). They otherwise sculpt their bodies from bone. It likely means that at some point they have to render down bone and then reform it. So they can have noses.
They can also have multiple bones of the right length to form a leg. Look at the mounts hind leg and you can see at least 5 or 6 bones making up the lower part of the leg. Now trying to find several people of the same size to make those bones fit together like that would be a nightmare. Better to render down a load of bone, reshape it and build up a boney design
Liege-Kavaloi are mounted generals, which are a generic leader unit (take as many as you want up to the leader limit).
However of them there's a hero Arch-Kavalos Zandtos who is the mighty guy we saw in the hazy leak photos
The article also confirms that both those leader options are built from the same kit. For me this is fantastic as I really liked that mounted lord so to have one not just as a hero, but also having a generic option is great!
There is also specific mention that "Nagash, Arkhan the Black and Morghasts can all be included in an Ossirarch Bonereapers force" at the end of the article. It doesn't mention in what capacity, but it confirms what we've seen in the leak photos, plus also suggests taht Arkhan is the only mortarch present.
Looks like a garish, ugly version of Napoleon Bonaparte. It needs a mask to cover that stupid grin, and a helmet and shield that's not stupid.
Slightly better than Napoleon Bone-apart (I bet that's what the internal name for that model is. You can just imagine GW's design team going "what if we made Bonaparte into a skeleton? Because his name is BONE-aparte, get it?), but still needs to drop the dumb hat.
1) The bit in the beasts mouth for both mounts is in an odd place. It's nestled right at the back where the jawbone hinges rather than, at least on the regular lord, where it should be which is in front of the molars and behind the front teeth. Of course the hero mount hasn't got a gap and instead has a whole mouth of teeth. However its another sign that these are not simply dead animals brought to life but resculpted bone.
2) The fact that the mount has a bit and reins suggests that its not a machine in mind. That it likely has a wildness to it that is partly untamed. This presents an interesting concept as the Bonereapers could be much like the Machines from the Matrix film. United yet at the same time possessed of their own independence.
It also makes one wonder about things like the part living catapult and other war engines. What happens if your catapult has a bad day and refuses to behave?
It also opens up the potential for considering Reapers who might not want to be warriors; what happens if one is formed who wants to be a poet?
Of course we can't know for sure until we get the book, but it leaves the door open for personalities, settlements, independent characters, unique viewpoints and more and that's before we even touch on the potential madness of ahving multiple souls in the same body or, in the case of the elite warriors with 4 heads, disagreements within the same body.
This must be peak tactical rockage in WH. I wonder why they stopped at 3, they should have gone for all 4 Or does he make rocks grow where he steps to not sully hooves of his pony with dirty soil or something?
This must be peak tactical rockage in WH. I wonder why they stopped at 3, they should have gone for all 4 Or does he make rocks grow where he steps to not sully hooves of his pony with dirty soil or something?
Irbis wrote: This must be peak tactical rockage in WH. I wonder why they stopped at 3, they should have gone for all 4 Or does he make rocks grow where he steps to not sully hooves of his pony with dirty soil or something?
Proof once again of GW's mastery of odd photo angles If you check the other build, the largest of the three rocks is a separate part and is not connected to the mounts right foreleg. So its only stood on two tactical rocks
It also opens up the potential for considering Reapers who might not want to be warriors; what happens if one is formed who wants to be a poet?
Of course we can't know for sure until we get the book, but it leaves the door open for personalities, settlements, independent characters, unique viewpoints and more and that's before we even touch on the potential madness of ahving multiple souls in the same body or, in the case of the elite warriors with 4 heads, disagreements within the same body.
I doubt Nagash would let such a flawed product out of his micromanaging grasp.
Horses generally try to avoid doing that - especially with so much nice flat ground...close by?
What a weird stylistic choice.
It's probably playing to the mongolian steppes style of terrain. So the designers thought was that the base would be littered in rocks rather than open grassland. It might also be a result of the pose originally being made for the claw footed version and then the hoofed version required a bit more height (notice how the longest hind leg isn't standing on a stone) to retain the same posture and pose in the leg positions. So a stone was added for something for it to be standing on.
That does just look bad. I'd consider just always using the special character mount even for the generic character, but that one has the problem that the cloth hanging down from the sides isn't hanging properly at all for the mount being at that angle.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Still doesn't look right though. I actually thought one of the rocks were its hooves, and horses still wouldn't do that as its a little uncomfortable.
Granted, its an undead horse, but it still looks odd.
It's not even "an undead horse".
It's a construct made in the vague shape of a horse. For all we know, the actual spirit animating it is a goat.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Still doesn't look right though. I actually thought one of the rocks were its hooves, and horses still wouldn't do that as its a little uncomfortable.
Granted, its an undead horse, but it still looks odd.
It's not even "an undead horse".
It's a construct made in the vague shape of a horse. For all we know, the actual spirit animating it is a goat.
Whenever I come to post something today, someone else already said it...
But my suggestion would have been soul confusion. The leg on the ground is powered by the soul of a horse. The ones on rocks, by mountain goats.
I don't care if they write a whole page in the army book explaining why they love to stand on rocks. Doesn't make it look any less dumb.
I got it. They mounts are composed of many souls, just like the humanoid constructs. Each of those legs is currently being controlled by the soul of a creature who thinks the ground is lava, so they won't go anywhere unless those two particular legs can be standing on a convenient rock.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't care if they write a whole page in the army book explaining why they love to stand on rocks. Doesn't make it look any less dumb.
I got it. They mounts are composed of many souls, just like the humanoid constructs. Each of those legs is currently being controlled by the soul of a creature who thinks the ground is lava, so they won't go anywhere unless those two particular legs can be standing on a convenient rock.
THIS!
Fluff can't trump aesthetics and design.
It is actually pretty boring that they went with horsish things for their mounts rather than giant spider constructs or something truly alien looking not seen very often as a mount.
But imo the bone clowns are basically just an army size construct of fail powered by the soul of bad design, so hopefully the people that like em like the tactical rock horsegoat soul mounts.
1) The bit in the beasts mouth for both mounts is in an odd place. It's nestled right at the back where the jawbone hinges rather than, at least on the regular lord, where it should be which is in front of the molars and behind the front teeth. Of course the hero mount hasn't got a gap and instead has a whole mouth of teeth. However its another sign that these are not simply dead animals brought to life but resculpted bone.
2) The fact that the mount has a bit and reins suggests that its not a machine in mind. That it likely has a wildness to it that is partly untamed. This presents an interesting concept as the Bonereapers could be much like the Machines from the Matrix film. United yet at the same time possessed of their own independence.
It also makes one wonder about things like the part living catapult and other war engines. What happens if your catapult has a bad day and refuses to behave?
It also opens up the potential for considering Reapers who might not want to be warriors; what happens if one is formed who wants to be a poet?
Of course we can't know for sure until we get the book, but it leaves the door open for personalities, settlements, independent characters, unique viewpoints and more and that's before we even touch on the potential madness of ahving multiple souls in the same body or, in the case of the elite warriors with 4 heads, disagreements within the same body.
The descriptions tell us that there are multiple souls in each construct and they have been chosen for the job, so pretty sure poet soul would not be stuck into one of these things. The reigns also could serve simply as a means of directing the mount without needing to shout at it over the din of battle.
Liege-Kavaloi are mounted generals, which are a generic leader unit (take as many as you want up to the leader limit).
However of them there's a hero Arch-Kavalos Zandtos who is the mighty guy we saw in the hazy leak photos
The article also confirms that both those leader options are built from the same kit. For me this is fantastic as I really liked that mounted lord so to have one not just as a hero, but also having a generic option is great!
There is also specific mention that "Nagash, Arkhan the Black and Morghasts can all be included in an Ossirarch Bonereapers force" at the end of the article. It doesn't mention in what capacity, but it confirms what we've seen in the leak photos, plus also suggests taht Arkhan is the only mortarch present.
...bone nose.
anyone know what colors are used painting that grey/dirty white bone color? love that
porkuslime wrote: Looks a lot like they tried REALLY hard to channel 1980's kids Saturday morning cartoons..
I (personally) think they look silly and over-the-top in a not pleasant way..
Yeah, they need to drop the stupid hats and give them face masks or something. Or just give them no face at all. Like a big old faceless legion of death.
Like, I get that they were trying to go for the centurion look with the helmets, but real centurion helmets looked more sensible than that.
porkuslime wrote: Looks a lot like they tried REALLY hard to channel 1980's kids Saturday morning cartoons..
I (personally) think they look silly and over-the-top in a not pleasant way..
There's also just so much extraneous detail. I mean, look at those little bone spurs dangling off the bottom of the shield. What are those about? Entirely non-functional, not particularly special or decorative; just clutter.
porkuslime wrote: Looks a lot like they tried REALLY hard to channel 1980's kids Saturday morning cartoons..
I (personally) think they look silly and over-the-top in a not pleasant way..
There's also just so much extraneous detail. I mean, look at those little bone spurs dangling off the bottom of the shield. What are those about? Entirely non-functional, not particularly special or decorative; just clutter.
Eh most units in the game have clutter.
Marines have seals and badges, heck some have reels of parchment and such on them. A good few eldar have bangles and such. Being a Heroic style fantasy/sci-fi setting there's bangles and bling and decoration on most stuff.
In the end I think its important to realise that the style choice of adding "featured detail" isn't a bad concept because its done in most of the armies. Instead its more a case that its a type of decoration you're not happy with.
That said there's some interesting bits, one of the cavalry horses appears to have a hand or parts of a hand dangling down from its chest plate (hard to tell from the photo's we've got). Plus some details like that are super easy to either not attach in the first place or to clip off and smooth over the contact area during assembly.
I think part of the idea is that the Reapers, being magical dead constructs, are not bound by form as much as other living creatures (that aren't warped by chaos) are. So there's a bit of room for some mutation and such going on.
Other times they might be emulating rare or exotic authentic historical weapons that might just not be your standard "hollywood European medieval" affair. There's more than a few times I've read people bashing certain design choices only to later discover that the design is actually based of historical record; just more niche than the person originally realised.
porkuslime wrote: Looks a lot like they tried REALLY hard to channel 1980's kids Saturday morning cartoons..
I (personally) think they look silly and over-the-top in a not pleasant way..
Yeah, they need to drop the stupid hats and give them face masks or something. Or just give them no face at all. Like a big old faceless legion of death.
Like, I get that they were trying to go for the centurion look with the helmets, but real centurion helmets looked more sensible than that.
If these teams were battleline you'd have a pretty cool SoD gladiator crew in the end - I'd consider running max size Iron Golems if they counted for something or had a stat better than 4+. But alas, just fun filler units.
Also, not sure how many of you listen to the 'Stormcast' 
)
If you check the other build, the largest of the three rocks is a separate part and is not connected to the mounts right foreleg. So its only stood on two tactical rocks 
