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.

If it's shoved into god specific whatabout chaos players who don't play one specific god?

Let's combine bonereapers, nagash and flesh eaters while at it

Cronch wrote:

are giving us much more diverse release

No, it's just more boring chaos and death, while destruction might as well not exist. Slaves to darkness could've easily been cut out and the few remaining units shoved into the god-themed books. But nope, Chaos has to have two books a year.

all chaos armies are now up to date book wise and there are some rumour engine pics that fit destruction.
As for death, they don't have a lot of releases. AoS has been mostly chaos and order release wise


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
If it's shoved into god specific whatabout chaos players who don't play one specific god?

Let's combine bonereapers, nagash and flesh eaters while at it

Why stop there, lets combine gits and orruks

Cronch wrote:

are giving us much more diverse release

No, it's just more boring chaos and death, while destruction might as well not exist. Slaves to darkness could've easily been cut out and the few remaining units shoved into the god-themed books. But nope, Chaos has to have two books a year.

Destruction has been ignored more so than others, even after the big Gloomspite Gitz release. I was listening to one of the AoS podcasts though from GW and the person being interviewed said that they'd had a big focus on Death over the last year or so and that their wheel of focus was going to shift more toward Destruction. Personally the way I see it Death only "needs" or might get one or possibly two more armies added. Almost certain that we'll see a Vampire themed army at some point - Vampires were always very popular in the Old World and they feature heavily in the AoS lore. I can well see them getting new models and poaching a load out of Legions of Nagash. Depending how they do the Vampires GW might also leave room for a traditional skeleton undead army or that will be rolled into Vampires.

After that I can't see any clear ways to add new armies to Death without adding something totally new like Ossiarchs; and I'd wager that instead of doing that GW would be better to shift to focusing on the Ourrks, Gits, Gobbos and perhaps some totally new ideas for wild and rough peoples of Destruction.

I play Chaos, and I have all the books (except beasts). You know what? Please hold off on any further chaos stuff, GW!! I need a break. Let’s wait two or three years, then you can continue w/Chaos stuff again. Bring out Death and Destruction stuff for a while. This Disciples book and campaign book? Nothing after them.

....Fulgrim or Angron in 40k would be ok though.

I dunno, I really, REALLY want some mortal followers of Slaanesh and some slaangors to come out...

I'm convinced well see a Death Vampires army at some point. Also one of the podcast interviews at GW revealed that Death had been a core focus for a while and that the wheel was going to turn toward Destruction. Which is very fitting. Of course that doesn't mean other Grand Alliances get ignored - you can make a case for many AoS armies that they either need updated old sculpts or new models to diversify their army.

It doesn't help that GW did drop High Elves and Tombkings which had two fairly modern rosters of models (even if HE had lost some to the Island of Blood join sprues problem - along with Skaven). A few armies ilke Daughters of Khaine are also fragments of once larger forces, so they are left with good tools but few tools.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I play Chaos, and I have all the books (except beasts). You know what? Please hold off on any further chaos stuff, GW!! I need a break. Let’s wait two or three years, then you can continue w/Chaos stuff again. Bring out Death and Destruction stuff for a while. This Disciples book and campaign book? Nothing after them.

....Fulgrim or Angron in 40k would be ok though.

As far along as we are now GW may as well give every remaining battletome a 2nd ed book and be done with it regardless of Grand Alliance. No point stopping now.

I'm always down for more Death, but honestly while Destruction actually needs it I'd rather GW put the time into Order humans instead of more Death stuff on the heels of a year of Death releases. Order isn't hurting for armies, but genuine AoS humans simply don't exist in that Grand Alliance while at the same time we can now look forward to the third elf army made or upgraded for AoS. That leaves a pretty big gap.

Or give me Tomb Kings. I'll make an exception for them.

Carlovonsexron wrote:
I dunno, I really, REALLY want some mortal followers of Slaanesh and some slaangors to come out...

Yep. No mortal followers of Slaanesh was bogus when the Slaanesh book was release, it's bogus now and it'll continue to be bogus until GW fixes that.

No mortal followers of Slaanesh

StD book is chock-full of them. Pretty much every mortal unit except cultists can be slaaneshi mortal follower

Cronch wrote:

No mortal followers of Slaanesh

StD book is chock-full of them. Pretty much every mortal unit except cultists can be slaaneshi mortal follower

Yes but each of the other Chaos god armies has two layers of mortals. The "generic" from the StD tome which they all share and their own dedicated mortal (or semi-mortal) followers which are unique sculpts which are part of the demons core army rather than StD. So when people say they want Slaanesh Mortals they mean new sculpts and unique models that are for their army alone. Right now they've only got the riders on seekers (which honestly I really wish got re-done because they look far too bulky atop the lithe seekers).

Personally, I wish they'd scrap the 4 Grand Alliances. They feel like a relic of the early days of AoS.

terry wrote:

Cronch wrote:

are giving us much more diverse release

No, it's just more boring chaos and death, while destruction might as well not exist. Slaves to darkness could've easily been cut out and the few remaining units shoved into the god-themed books. But nope, Chaos has to have two books a year.

all chaos armies are now up to date book wise and there are some rumour engine pics that fit destruction.
As for death, they don't have a lot of releases. AoS has been mostly chaos and order release wise

Not sure if serious...

Death has gotten two completely new armies, and legions has one of the biggest model selections.

I'd like to see a break from spamming battletomes and see them sprinkle 1-3 units (not characters) for each of the smaller armies (including slaanesh) over the course of the year. Just go a bit crazy with variety and filling gaps for a while. For both systems really. The book spam needs a break.

 EnTyme wrote:
Personally, I wish they'd scrap the 4 Grand Alliances. They feel like a relic of the early days of AoS.

I don't mind them. I think so long as Grand Alliance armies themselves remain a minor element to the game balance - ergo part of the game, but not more powerful than pure armies (ergo it avoids army soup problems); then the Grand Alliances are a neat idea. Lore wise its actually quite fun to have quite a few allies who are not all that enthralled with each other. Order is fantastic in that there's several groups in there who are really not all that nice to the others, yet are still relient and allied to them.

Plus we've already got armies like Skaven who are basically "out on their own" for the most part whilst being part of a Grand Alliance.

I can't see the GA going away, but I also don't see it harming the game either at this stage. There's even potential for GW to add a new one if they really wanted to add 3 or 5 or more new armies in a totally diferent direction; or even have a few armies as full "outliers" outside of the system.

Grand Alliance: Neutrals.

Voss wrote:

terry wrote:

Cronch wrote:

are giving us much more diverse release

No, it's just more boring chaos and death, while destruction might as well not exist. Slaves to darkness could've easily been cut out and the few remaining units shoved into the god-themed books. But nope, Chaos has to have two books a year.

all chaos armies are now up to date book wise and there are some rumour engine pics that fit destruction.
As for death, they don't have a lot of releases. AoS has been mostly chaos and order release wise

Not sure if serious...

Death has gotten two completely new armies, and legions has one of the biggest model selections.

I'd like to see a break from spamming battletomes and see them sprinkle 1-3 units (not characters) for each of the smaller armies (including slaanesh) over the course of the year. Just go a bit crazy with variety and filling gaps for a while. For both systems really. The book spam needs a break.

last year they only had 1 completely new army, flesh eaters already was an army with book

terry wrote:

Voss wrote:

terry wrote:

Cronch wrote:

are giving us much more diverse release

No, it's just more boring chaos and death, while destruction might as well not exist. Slaves to darkness could've easily been cut out and the few remaining units shoved into the god-themed books. But nope, Chaos has to have two books a year.

all chaos armies are now up to date book wise and there are some rumour engine pics that fit destruction.
As for death, they don't have a lot of releases. AoS has been mostly chaos and order release wise

Not sure if serious...

Death has gotten two completely new armies, and legions has one of the biggest model selections.

I'd like to see a break from spamming battletomes and see them sprinkle 1-3 units (not characters) for each of the smaller armies (including slaanesh) over the course of the year. Just go a bit crazy with variety and filling gaps for a while. For both systems really. The book spam needs a break.

last year they only had 1 completely new army, flesh eaters already was an army with book

Nothing will ever convince me to care about flesh eaters and their mutant orc models, I was referring to Nighthaunt (and obviously boneheads).

Aside from the hexwraiths, banshee and cairn wraith, everything there is brand new, made for AoS 2.0. They didn't even bother to use the relatively new spirit hosts for the ghost army.

Spirit hosts are in Nighthaunt, dunno where you got that tidbit from. As for releases, the best way to make the case would be to list all the battletome & new unit releases then compare the numbers. Wouldn't take all that long and would clear up who got how much.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Spirit hosts are in Nighthaunt, dunno where you got that tidbit from.

That they're on the Legion of Nagash store page but not the Nighthaunt store page. If they're in the Nighthaunt book, then its another GW web error, but GW's list of what makes up each army is what I'm going by.

As for releases, the best way to make the case would be to list all the battletome & new unit releases then compare the numbers. Wouldn't take all that long and would clear up who got how much.

Feel free. It seems pretty cut and dry to me that Death got two new armies in AoS 2.0, since one was just a few months ago and the other arrived with the AoS 2.0 boxed set.

 Overread wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Personally, I wish they'd scrap the 4 Grand Alliances. They feel like a relic of the early days of AoS.

I don't mind them. I think so long as Grand Alliance armies themselves remain a minor element to the game balance - ergo part of the game, but not more powerful than pure armies (ergo it avoids army soup problems); then the Grand Alliances are a neat idea. Lore wise its actually quite fun to have quite a few allies who are not all that enthralled with each other. Order is fantastic in that there's several groups in there who are really not all that nice to the others, yet are still relient and allied to them.

Plus we've already got armies like Skaven who are basically "out on their own" for the most part whilst being part of a Grand Alliance.

I can't see the GA going away, but I also don't see it harming the game either at this stage. There's even potential for GW to add a new one if they really wanted to add 3 or 5 or more new armies in a totally diferent direction; or even have a few armies as full "outliers" outside of the system.

My main issue is that the justifications for which armies go in which alliance are often flimsy at best, especially for the Order alliance. Are they worshippers of Sigmar? Then why are Sylvaneth, Seraphon, DoK, and Fyreslayers there? The "good guys?" Again, Daughters of Khaine (and Sylvaneth get a little stabby if you wander too close to their forests, too). Is Death the followers of Nagash? Then why are the Flesheater Courts a part of it? Chaos seems pretty straight forward, but Destruction is just "whatever we had left over". I just don't see the point in these four arbitrary groupings of armies. It just doesn't seem to serve a purpose in the current game.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Personally, I wish they'd scrap the 4 Grand Alliances. They feel like a relic of the early days of AoS.

I don't mind them. I think so long as Grand Alliance armies themselves remain a minor element to the game balance - ergo part of the game, but not more powerful than pure armies (ergo it avoids army soup problems); then the Grand Alliances are a neat idea. Lore wise its actually quite fun to have quite a few allies who are not all that enthralled with each other. Order is fantastic in that there's several groups in there who are really not all that nice to the others, yet are still relient and allied to them.

Plus we've already got armies like Skaven who are basically "out on their own" for the most part whilst being part of a Grand Alliance.

I can't see the GA going away, but I also don't see it harming the game either at this stage. There's even potential for GW to add a new one if they really wanted to add 3 or 5 or more new armies in a totally diferent direction; or even have a few armies as full "outliers" outside of the system.

My main issue is that the justifications for which armies go in which alliance are often flimsy at best, especially for the Order alliance. Are they worshippers of Sigmar? Then why are Sylvaneth, Seraphon, DoK, and Fyreslayers there? The "good guys?" Again, Daughters of Khaine (and Sylvaneth get a little stabby if you wander too close to their forests, too). Is Death the followers of Nagash? Then why are the Flesheater Courts a part of it? Chaos seems pretty straight forward, but Destruction is just "whatever we had left over". I just don't see the point in these four arbitrary groupings of armies. It just doesn't seem to serve a purpose in the current game.

Is it really that difficult to understand what the forces of "Order" might represent?

The only issue I have with grand alliances is that they could do with another section.

Something like an “evil” alliance for deepkin, dark elves, daughters etc.
They really aren’t an order army by any means but they also aren’t devoted to a chaos god.

JSG wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Personally, I wish they'd scrap the 4 Grand Alliances. They feel like a relic of the early days of AoS.

I don't mind them. I think so long as Grand Alliance armies themselves remain a minor element to the game balance - ergo part of the game, but not more powerful than pure armies (ergo it avoids army soup problems); then the Grand Alliances are a neat idea. Lore wise its actually quite fun to have quite a few allies who are not all that enthralled with each other. Order is fantastic in that there's several groups in there who are really not all that nice to the others, yet are still relient and allied to them.

Plus we've already got armies like Skaven who are basically "out on their own" for the most part whilst being part of a Grand Alliance.

I can't see the GA going away, but I also don't see it harming the game either at this stage. There's even potential for GW to add a new one if they really wanted to add 3 or 5 or more new armies in a totally diferent direction; or even have a few armies as full "outliers" outside of the system.

My main issue is that the justifications for which armies go in which alliance are often flimsy at best, especially for the Order alliance. Are they worshippers of Sigmar? Then why are Sylvaneth, Seraphon, DoK, and Fyreslayers there? The "good guys?" Again, Daughters of Khaine (and Sylvaneth get a little stabby if you wander too close to their forests, too). Is Death the followers of Nagash? Then why are the Flesheater Courts a part of it? Chaos seems pretty straight forward, but Destruction is just "whatever we had left over". I just don't see the point in these four arbitrary groupings of armies. It just doesn't seem to serve a purpose in the current game.

Is it really that difficult to understand what the forces of "Order" might represent?

Gold crazed mercenaries, soul stealers, mass murderers, murderous mutant cultists, smugglers and evil trees intent on blood sacrifice, apparently. Not a traditional definition of the word in any usage.

Uh, order = organised, civilised (the literal meaning, not the prejudicial ‘moral’ sense), lawful, conservative, and fruitful. Nowhere in there is “good” required or expected.

You’re trying to fit good/evil onto the law/chaos axis and it isn’t going to work.
The four GA represent separate steps on one axis, not the extremes of two.

Jackal90 wrote:
The only issue I have with grand alliances is that they could do with another section.

Something like an “evil” alliance for deepkin, dark elves, daughters etc.
They really aren’t an order army by any means but they also aren’t devoted to a chaos god.

'Order' is not analogous to 'Good', but is closer to 'Lawful' in D&D and can be good, neutral or evil.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Uh, order = organised, civilised (the literal meaning, not the prejudicial ‘moral’ sense), lawful, conservative, and fruitful. Nowhere in there is “good” required or expected.

You’re trying to fit good/evil onto the law/chaos axis and it isn’t going to work.
The four GA represent separate steps on one axis, not the extremes of two.

Organised and civilised fits the theme for almost every faction in the game to a degree.
There is also nothing civilised about the armies I mentioned.
Deepkin especially as they refuse to change and attack just about everyone, including their own.

Maybe “evil” was a poor choice of words though.
I’d say more of a neutral alliance.

I feel like the replies to my post only reinforce my point. It took less than half a page to get two different sets of parameters for Order, each with multiple exceptions within the alliance.

Order represents those races of people who build civilizations and are typically sedentary in nature with regard to those civilizations. They will typically establish cities, settlements, farm the land and generally approach life with a view toward improving their reigon in their own way. They also all oppose Chaos (some more than others) and also are allies of Sigmar and his forces.

However those alliances are not set in iron, its more a case of "The enemies of my enemies are my friends" kind of situation. However the Free Cities also act much like trading settlements. So you've got Daughters of Khaine running underground fight clubs; you've got KO who appear to be the backbone of realm trade and transport over long distances. Honestly the only army that really stands out more than all the others is Idoneth and that's mostly because they REALLY keep to themselves (more than the shadow aelves and Daughters of Khaine) and also directly harvest people as a resource.


Chaos - self evident these are the forces touched by the ruinous powers of Chaos. However within their ranks you've got everything from Skaven who are almost born of chaos; to Chaos Warriors and lords who are totally besotted with chaos - all the way down to wild tribes of people and cities who don't follow Sigmar nor the Chaos Gods in name. Indeed a big part of the Warcry background for the Warbands is that each one of those races worships different gods in name; behind the scenes they are Chaos Greater Demons and gods, but in their face they are other named gods. Chaos forces might build cities and civilizations, but they work with the ruinous powers so whilst they might not know it; they work toward the end of the world. The Novella Warqueen gives a really nice view on some of the more mortal side of the followers long before they are fevered with Chaos. It's actually refreshing to see those who believe and follow the Chaos gods more like tribes and people with loves, lusts, desires, care and humanity still intact rather than mindless slaves to chaos

Destruction. Once Allies of Sigmar against Chaos, destruction basically is formed of those who are more tribal. They will take and hold lands; they will build huge fortresses; but by and large they are more nomadic; more working with the land than seeking to "tame" it. Furthermore they are more "wild" and given to less stability. Orruks are no longer the green "boogymen" of the setting and are more a wild bunch. I figure that once we start to see more of them we might even see a bit of a GW style of Warcraft orks start to appear - ergo seeing their lives, struggles, goals etc... Ergo rounding them out to be more than "Orgh Fight!" even though that's going to be a bit part of their society.
They are also freely able to trade and work with Order forces and races.

Death - forces of Nagash and perhaps the most unified of all the Grand Alliances by nature of how Nagash has formed his undead and is taming the realm of Death. All are allied to Nagash; all save the Flesheaters of course who are utterly insane. They are more used as a wildcard tool and tolerated; but otherwise all the rest of Death, whilst having its own mind, is enslaved toward Nagash's goal. Some forces more than others - though even armies like the Ossiarchs can still have their own mind and goal. It's clear that whilst Nagash can impose his will he's not able to do it to a whole race all at once - hence why he often acts through agents and generals and mortarchs.



It's also important to note that the Grand Alliances apply to the biggest of those respective races. Within the Realms there is a myriad of smaller factions of different races that might not respect the allliances at the top. So you'll get Free Cities who wage war on Sylvaneth; I've already covered Idoneth raiding humans for souls; there's going to be likely Orruk traders; Ogor cooks (heck Ogor mercenaries are a staple even from the Old World).


Again the Grand Alliances are the top-end scale of things and represent broad alliances. There's tremendious room within that for rivalries; wars; competition and more within each Grand Alliance.

Make that three different sets of parameters, though props to Overread for pointing out the contradictions to his own definition.

edit Just to clarify, my main issue with the GAs is that the Order alliance is so vaguely defined that it makes it difficult for the other alliances to have expansion potential. By Overread's definition, Tzeentch could be an Order army. I've seen multiple arguments for Tomb Kings being an Order army. Pick a random fantasy trope and make an army out of it, and it's going to fit Order better than any of the other three alliances. I understand the purpose of the alliances as a high-level way of organizing armies, but now that the Allies system is firmly established, I feel like the GAs don't add anything to the game.

TK could well have been Order… if their soldiers were free-willed individuals. Being controlled minions puts them overall on the extremities of the Law axis, which is Grand Alliance Death’s domain, even if they aren’t friends of Nagash.

Another way to think of it is that in a "last ditch" situation the Grand Alliances represent the unity that will form up. So when backed against a wall Skaven will ally with Chaos forces in the lore. Same for most of Order, even Idoneth will come from the seas to battle the forces of Chaos in alliance to their foes. Indeed armies like Daughters of Khaine, who are otherwise not all that trustworthy, are fantastic allies against Chaos (esp Slaanesh forces).

That sounds like a lore situation that is adequately represented by the Allies mechanic and the Grand Alliances could be scrapped with minimal loss to the game or lore.