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.

Well the leak suggested StDs in December, and I would expect them to be doing previews because that is a rather significant army--it is in essence the original 'bad guy' faction of not only WHFB but Warhammer as a whole.

Yeah, I’m hoping for Slaves to Darkness as well.

I was brainstorming some pure wishlisting ideas that it would be fun if they were a dark mirror to the CoS book, with Chaos Bastions having their own artifacts/traits/abilities with limited access to the big 4 Chaos Books, like the Free Cities have.

Could really bring Chaos to life, even further than they have been.

 nels1031 wrote:
Any guesses on what AoS goodness will be previewed at Blood and Glory?

Dude on twitter saying new Chaos Warriors and Knights have been sighted, but take that with a heavy dose of salt.

https://twitter.com/carrionking87/status/1189418567906648065?s=21

Slaves to Darkness Battletome reveal and a tease of the new Kurnoth line.

In the recent Reapers podcast (Stormcast) it was said that Slaves to Darkness mortals make up the majority of humans in the Realms in a big way with the Free Peoples being a minority in comparison (and keeping in mind they are made up of human, dwarf and elf).

So Slaves aren't just the big evil; they aren't just the ones who conquered most of the mortal realms for 500 years but they are the big and major population. It's a reversal of the way things were in the Old World.


Though I think this has yet to really come through in the stories and general lore. Likely because we always see the Slaves as remnants of great armies smashed by Stormcast or isolated wild-peoples. So they appear fewer in number against the powerful cities and fortresses of the Free Peoples.

Theyve been playing the role of jobbers for the past five years, existing mainly to make everyone else look good. Except khadaron overlords.

I think we'll see some nice changes. GW has - at least through Black Library - really been pushing more barbarian/free/wild peoples angles through the lore. I think more modern Slaves are going to be split into those clearly fully in the thrall of the Chaos Gods and those who are what we might consider the equivalent to the Barbarians who fought the Roman Empire (With Rome being Sigmar).

Creating a fantastic grey area where there are "wild" peoples who are worshiping all kinds of gods; and who might be somewhat barbaric, but are not pure "evil" as such (save for perhaps their religious leaders/those more in thrall of the gods). I think it will set the scene for a lot more grey story telling and also gives a real idea how Chaos can corrupt whole peoples to its cause without them all having to become mutants.

 Overread wrote:
In the recent Reapers podcast (Stormcast) it was said that Slaves to Darkness mortals make up the majority of humans in the Realms in a big way with the Free Peoples being a minority in comparison (and keeping in mind they are made up of human, dwarf and elf).

So Slaves aren't just the big evil; they aren't just the ones who conquered most of the mortal realms for 500 years but they are the big and major population. It's a reversal of the way things were in the Old World.


Though I think this has yet to really come through in the stories and general lore. Likely because we always see the Slaves as remnants of great armies smashed by Stormcast or isolated wild-peoples. So they appear fewer in number against the powerful cities and fortresses of the Free Peoples.

A lot like Renegades & Heretics/Lost and Damned in 40k then. They're by far the most populous part of Chaos' armies, but you wouldn't know that looking at the tabletop and most non-Black Library fluff.

Whoa!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/10/31/happy-halloween/

Stahp, GW! My wallet hurts! I can’t take new Chaos Warriors and Knights *pained groans* *hugs battered wallet* *looks up at unpainted Archaon alone on the shelf* *weeps*

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'm not questioning or doubting that the same happens in any game with a competitive scene.

I'm saying it to keep people mindful that when others are trying to tout those competitive level stats as if they are meaningful to the entire community, that they are grossly mistaken and out of context.

Yeah. You often see these stats peddled out of context to show "See? Game's fine look at all the balance!" when it only deals with the most optimized builds. So a faction might be "fine" in a tournament where it's single "meta" build is all you ever see, but relatively weak if you're using anything other than that one build (which most people likely are). So, in this case, the stats become meaningless since they are dealing with what is essentially a fringe case that isn't indicative of the majority but is often the most visible (and often vocal) part.

Alternatively, you can use these stats as part of the picture. I am by no means touting these as the ultimate measuring stick, but they do illuminate some issues. Just because they don't paint the entire picture, does not make them meaningless either. There is still plenty of good information you can derive from this, if you choose to.

 Sasori wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'm not questioning or doubting that the same happens in any game with a competitive scene.

I'm saying it to keep people mindful that when others are trying to tout those competitive level stats as if they are meaningful to the entire community, that they are grossly mistaken and out of context.

Yeah. You often see these stats peddled out of context to show "See? Game's fine look at all the balance!" when it only deals with the most optimized builds. So a faction might be "fine" in a tournament where it's single "meta" build is all you ever see, but relatively weak if you're using anything other than that one build (which most people likely are). So, in this case, the stats become meaningless since they are dealing with what is essentially a fringe case that isn't indicative of the majority but is often the most visible (and often vocal) part.

Alternatively, you can use these stats as part of the picture. I am by no means touting these as the ultimate measuring stick, but they do illuminate some issues. Just because they don't paint the entire picture, does not make them meaningless either. There is still plenty of good information you can derive from this, if you choose to.

Well said, exalted.

 Sasori wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'm not questioning or doubting that the same happens in any game with a competitive scene.

I'm saying it to keep people mindful that when others are trying to tout those competitive level stats as if they are meaningful to the entire community, that they are grossly mistaken and out of context.

Yeah. You often see these stats peddled out of context to show "See? Game's fine look at all the balance!" when it only deals with the most optimized builds. So a faction might be "fine" in a tournament where it's single "meta" build is all you ever see, but relatively weak if you're using anything other than that one build (which most people likely are). So, in this case, the stats become meaningless since they are dealing with what is essentially a fringe case that isn't indicative of the majority but is often the most visible (and often vocal) part.

Alternatively, you can use these stats as part of the picture. I am by no means touting these as the ultimate measuring stick, but they do illuminate some issues. Just because they don't paint the entire picture, does not make them meaningless either. There is still plenty of good information you can derive from this, if you choose to.

Not saying they are meaningless. They show the game at the level where everyone is trying to break the game. I am saying that people, a great many people, use these stats as the be all end all of the game's overall balance and health, which is essentially ignoring the vast swathe of people that aren't playing the game to break the game or who made the mistake of picking up models that looked cool, but then get destroyed because of the issues in the system.

For every good nugget of information that can be gleaned from those stats, there are 10 complaints about the unhinged balance in the casual scene that are flat out dismissed because the "stats show the game is in a great place at the tournament level". Thats what needs addressed and rectified unless one only cares about the tournament level (which I find most of those statements are coming from people that only really care about the tournament level, and the two contexts can never meet)

Gotta agree even in casual games I had no real answer the other day against a Fyreslayer list, there's just so much mortal wounds dealt for fun to my Nighthaunts I can't keep up in durability. I don't like the inconsistency between datasheets that deal mortal wounds on 6s to Hit (mine) and those that add mortal wounds on 6s to Hit (Fyreslayers).

There is more or less nothing Nighthaunt can do against a properly built Fyreslayers list. The army does not have the tools to beat a hearthguard-spam list, save hoping luck or the opponent's mistakes give you an opportunity. If you are playing in Hysh banishment screws them, so there's that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There is more or less nothing Nighthaunt can do against a properly built Fyreslayers list. The army does not have the tools to beat a hearthguard-spam list, save hoping luck or the opponent's mistakes give you an opportunity. If you are playing in Hysh banishment screws them, so there's that.

This is sadly very true. Nighthaunt have a lot of problems, but things get a lot worse when they face armies that have better durability then them, which is supposed to be their schtick. Fyreslayers have both this durability and extremely potent offense, and can deal both mass mortal wounds and mass amounts of regular wounds.

Nighthaunt aren't alone in that, with the vs Fyrelsayers matchup or others. A mediocre LoN list is something many armies are left with 'well I hope my opponent screws up.' And LoN isn't even top tier (anymore).

I try to stay positive but the current state of AoS has left me totally disillusioned with Matched Play. I feel like things have backslid over the course of 2019 and we are at a notably worse place now than we were.

Still, compared to 40k I'm having way more fun in AoS even with the balance problem, because 40k is a clustertruck of problems. At least in AoS the whole game is fun and I almost always have twists in my games that make it more interesting and most of the time make me win (like rolling three 10" charges that devastate the enemy before the Fight phase even begins).

Eventually there's going to be a new battletome and things may even out. Right now I'm looking at Bonereapers with growing concern, I've read Cities of Sigmar were kinda busted too (but complicated) but there's no players for the faction here, whereas everyone wants to start a Bonereaper army and they look very powerful too.

Honestly so far I don't think there are too many "dud" armies and the problem armies in AoS don't seem to be AS much a problem as they are in 40K. There seems to be less of a swinging divide in general, esp if you take Slaanesh's depravity out of the equation.

To me that suggests a game that can potentially balance itself up through Generals Handbooks and updates more reliably.

Granted I think a bit boon for AoS is how GW has handled armies in terms of balance of composition. In 40K Marines/Imperials want to make these huge monster soup things; in AoS its almost the other way around for most Grand Alliances - which I thin is far more fun to have individual armies standing strong.

I think so long as they stick to the release schedule they do with rolling releases that any real balanced play is not possible.

So ummm.... the new chaos look insanely badass af!

Yeah, love all of it.

And I think the leaked price/shipping list had some other stuff, like Endless Spells. So more may be on the way.

I really like the new warriors and knights. They retained their old look in a more modern sculpt. I will be picking some up to put into my kings of war chaos warriors list.

New StD stuff is really ace.

The fact that the Star collecting is composed of only the new models is also fantastic.

Really well done. I don't feel like GW has really put out a bad sculpt in a while, but these exceeded any expectations I had.

The new StDs look fantastic, I can't wait to have them!

On the balance topic, yeah, at least AoS isn't 40k levels of bad.

On a different note, the Bonereaper battalion in the starter allows for 1 slain model to be brought back each turn... To any one unit within 8" of Vokmortian. So yeah, bring a morghast back every turn. 120 point battalion. THAT is why balance is terrible. Not the pace of releases, not changes in design philosophy, but because for whatever reason no one says 'hm, maybe a battalion that can recover 110 points of model a turn should cost more than 120."

When I say staggered releases are the cause of the issues its because they design armies out of context of each other in a staggered format.

So you get some armies that are busted and some that are trash and the rest in the middle somewhere.

And thats always been the case since a couple of years after Ravening Hordes 2000.

Last year it was what... FEC and skaven or whatever. And then a few months pass and then its slaanesh. ANd now its the masters of the universe undead with broken elements. It will always be something. And 9 times out of 10 its something so busted that we figure out in 5 minutes is busted that you have no idea how a professional rules design team would produce such a thing, but thats always the case time after time.

Its not like something you have to spend a month or two finding through rigorous playing. Its literally 5 minutes into opening the rules section of the book you say "where's waldo".... "oh there he is!"

Hmm, interestingly they never mentioned that these units will be purchasable outside of the start collecting though. It seems like an incredible move, but could they be snap fit without options and stuck in this star collecting box? Hopefully I’m wrong and this is pure speculation, just a small concern.

 auticus wrote:
When I say staggered releases are the cause of the issues its because they design armies out of context of each other in a staggered format.

So you get some armies that are busted and some that are trash and the rest in the middle somewhere.

And thats always been the case since a couple of years after Ravening Hordes 2000.

Last year it was what... FEC and skaven or whatever. And then a few months pass and then its slaanesh. ANd now its the masters of the universe undead with broken elements. It will always be something. And 9 times out of 10 its something so busted that we figure out in 5 minutes is busted that you have no idea how a professional rules design team would produce such a thing, but thats always the case time after time.

Its not like something you have to spend a month or two finding through rigorous playing. Its literally 5 minutes into opening the rules section of the book you say "where's waldo".... "oh there he is!"

Except the Ogors are notably less powerful than the Bonereapers. And before that the Orruk battletome is notably stronger overall than Free Cities. And within Free Cities the balance between different ones is abysmal--a change in context can't explain poor balancing between elements in the same battletome.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
When I say staggered releases are the cause of the issues its because they design armies out of context of each other in a staggered format.

So you get some armies that are busted and some that are trash and the rest in the middle somewhere.

And thats always been the case since a couple of years after Ravening Hordes 2000.

Last year it was what... FEC and skaven or whatever. And then a few months pass and then its slaanesh. ANd now its the masters of the universe undead with broken elements. It will always be something. And 9 times out of 10 its something so busted that we figure out in 5 minutes is busted that you have no idea how a professional rules design team would produce such a thing, but thats always the case time after time.

Its not like something you have to spend a month or two finding through rigorous playing. Its literally 5 minutes into opening the rules section of the book you say "where's waldo".... "oh there he is!"

Except the Ogors are notably less powerful than the Bonereapers. And before that the Orruk battletome is notably stronger overall than Free Cities. And within Free Cities the balance between different ones is abysmal--a change in context can't explain poor balancing between elements in the same battletome.

I think its a mix of both. Remember they don't just have staggered releases. They also have a couple different writing teams. So you've got a team that is pushing the envelope of what rules can do, and a team that is trying to keep the baseline balance the same over time. They don't talk to each other so they don't realize that the other team isn't doing the same they are, and then you get two releases in quick succession where one is wildly powerful and the other more in line with what every battletome should be.

Or at least that's how I think of it because I would rather not just assume ineptitude.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The new StDs look fantastic, I can't wait to have them!

On the balance topic, yeah, at least AoS isn't 40k levels of bad.

On a different note, the Bonereaper battalion in the starter allows for 1 slain model to be brought back each turn... To any one unit within 8" of Vokmortian. So yeah, bring a morghast back every turn. 120 point battalion. THAT is why balance is terrible. Not the pace of releases, not changes in design philosophy, but because for whatever reason no one says 'hm, maybe a battalion that can recover 110 points of model a turn should cost more than 120."

Thankfully isn't that battalion (like most of the other battle box ones) only limited to that box itself.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
When I say staggered releases are the cause of the issues its because they design armies out of context of each other in a staggered format.

So you get some armies that are busted and some that are trash and the rest in the middle somewhere.

And thats always been the case since a couple of years after Ravening Hordes 2000.

Last year it was what... FEC and skaven or whatever. And then a few months pass and then its slaanesh. ANd now its the masters of the universe undead with broken elements. It will always be something. And 9 times out of 10 its something so busted that we figure out in 5 minutes is busted that you have no idea how a professional rules design team would produce such a thing, but thats always the case time after time.

Its not like something you have to spend a month or two finding through rigorous playing. Its literally 5 minutes into opening the rules section of the book you say "where's waldo".... "oh there he is!"

Except the Ogors are notably less powerful than the Bonereapers. And before that the Orruk battletome is notably stronger overall than Free Cities. And within Free Cities the balance between different ones is abysmal--a change in context can't explain poor balancing between elements in the same battletome.

Thats why i said you get some armies that are busted and some that are trash and the rest languishing in the middle somewhere.

Its always a roller coaster. Goblins come out ok. Then fec and skaven busted. Then slaanesh busted. Then free cities are ok. Then masters of the universe appear busted while ogors are probably ok.

Why would anyone actively encourage and support years of that?

Who knows what slaves to darkness will be. Based on the pattern, probably ok. They certainly cant be worse than their current rules. But just ok means bad games against the busted.