Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

tzeentch has some

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.

What if they won’t show you theirs first?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

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?

Indeed.
I have two regiment of hellstriders in both configuration of weapons already.

Slaanesh rank and file infantry (marauder/cultist),
heavy heavy infantry (Slaanesh chaos warrior) would be a thing
I would buy in a heartbeat.

Nurgle and Slaanesh could both use an expansion of their mono-god mortal side. Slaanesh has it way worse though, big shame they cut the two lords.

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.

Anyone knows when the Free Guilds/Peoples book is due? I've looked around and can't find the information.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Anyone knows when the Free Guilds/Peoples book is due? I've looked around and can't find the information.

We don't know. They said "in the coming weeks", but that's about it.

The book is called "Free Cities of Sigmar" by the by.

Ah, thanks for giving me the proper name.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Anyone knows when the Free Guilds/Peoples book is due? I've looked around and can't find the information.

All we know is "... before the Ossiarch Bonereapers battletome..." which has been confirmed to have an October pre-order.

 Sasori wrote:

 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.

 Sasori wrote:

 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

terry wrote:

 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?