Jump to content

new death battletome announced!


tea_wild_owl

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Sception said:

But even if I want to be excited about it, the lack of details leaves me frustrated.  For the first time in a long time, I actually feel like painting something, to have a Legion of Sacrament army ready to go on day one, but what do I even paint, when I dont know what will even be in the army*?

I feel your pain, but I've started to paint what I'd assume would be in the legion of night allegiance. At least that way you feel like your painting to something. Hell, even if half of what you've painted doesn't end up in your desired legion at least you've painted units that are ready to go in other allegiances.

on a whole, I'm truly excited. Right now I care less for new models. I care more for a stronger mechanic and I do believe the new tome will deliver that. As people have said above this post, the tome is going to give us a broader spectrum of list building, tinkering and possibly entering the "competitive" bracket.

i for one am a lover of the vampiric background, so I have painted mannfred and a VLoZD. Next is more vargheists as I ASSUME mannfred would utilise them in his army/allegiance (speaking in hope of vargheists being in his legion from the tome)

As a whole, i think we all need to calm our nerves, continue as normal and wait for the portents and tome release. We are getting some love finally and we should be gracious in a way. Patience is a virtue and good things come to those who wait.

LETS GET EXCITED PEOPLE!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 615
  • Created
  • Last Reply
33 minutes ago, Dracothjay said:

LETS GET EXCITED PEOPLE!!!!

giphy.gif

 

:)  I'm looking forward to seeing what they've done with Legions of Nagash, really happy that GW are doing something and it looks like it's all being tied together with the Malign Portents campaign.

I can see what people are saying in that they'd like to see some factions reinvented or fleshed out (badatum) but hopefully bringing things up towards the level of some of the later factions is the first step.  I'd actually rather have this than a brand new faction and forget the rest as it should make the current range playable immediately.

Also has it been confirmed that LoN is getting no new models - all I've read/heard is that there are no new warscrolls, which is an entirely different thing, although I do appreciate that I've not heard every interview or read every Facebook topic.  I think Wight King and Necromancer are the only warscrolls out there that don't have a supporting models for all of the options so could see them appearing (or the option removed) as a random release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dracothjay said:

I feel your pain, but I've started to paint what I'd assume would be in the legion of night allegiance. At least that way you feel like your painting to something. Hell, even if half of what you've painted doesn't end up in your desired legion at least you've painted units that are ready to go in other allegiances.

on a whole, I'm truly excited. Right now I care less for new models. I care more for a stronger mechanic and I do believe the new tome will deliver that. As people have said above this post, the tome is going to give us a broader spectrum of list building, tinkering and possibly entering the "competitive" bracket.

i for one am a lover of the vampiric background, so I have painted mannfred and a VLoZD. Next is more vargheists as I ASSUME mannfred would utilise them in his army/allegiance (speaking in hope of vargheists being in his legion from the tome)

As a whole, i think we all need to calm our nerves, continue as normal and wait for the portents and tome release. We are getting some love finally and we should be gracious in a way. Patience is a virtue and good things come to those who wait.

LETS GET EXCITED PEOPLE!!!!

I’m currently painting Tomb Kings Carrion, so that shows how off message I am!

I think like Sception what I’m really doing is treading water until we get some clarity. I’m starting to think about investing in Arkhan (not an easy painting project I suspect) and I’ll drop everything when the Knight of Shrouds comes out. I don’t care what it does, it looks fab. Looks to die for in fact.

I’ll get my coat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to start building and painting Arkhan and 30 skeletons. That should be pretty safe.  Other than that I will leave it just now until the tome drops. 

Maybe I could get someones advise that has built the Mortarchs before.  I also have another Mortarch kit to build as well (bought the battleforce and start collecting skeleton horde). I was planning on building Arkhan out of the first kit and Neferata/Manfred out of the second as their mounts are pretty similar. However I also plan to magnetise the riders so I can play any combination of two at once. Worst case scenario Neferata or Manfred are on a mount that doesn't look quite as good. Anything stopping me doing that? Someone mentioned to me that they thought that the riders don't fit on the others mounts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Teuchter said:

I'm going to start building and painting Arkhan and 30 skeletons. That should be pretty safe.  Other than that I will leave it just now until the tome drops. 

Maybe I could get someones advise that has built the Mortarchs before.  I also have another Mortarch kit to build as well (bought the battleforce and start collecting skeleton horde). I was planning on building Arkhan out of the first kit and Neferata/Manfred out of the second as their mounts are pretty similar. However I also plan to magnetise the riders so I can play any combination of two at once. Worst case scenario Neferata or Manfred are on a mount that doesn't look quite as good. Anything stopping me doing that? Someone mentioned to me that they thought that the riders don't fit on the others mounts

I just built a Mortarch and magnetized the riders. They fit and it was easy. The key is to glue rider to saddle and magnetize the saddle to attach it to the mount. Each rider has a separate saddle and you simply remove it along with the rider when you want to switch them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 for Yeled's post. I just picked the coolest head and chest piece for my Abyssal as no-one is nitpicky enough to care about that at my local, and anyone who is at your's needs Dreadsocking.

The hidden advantage is buying a metal ruler and having your Mortarchs slide down it on their magnets like a kid in a playground. Bonus points if you modelled them in dynamic, arms-wide poses that look like they're going, "wheeeee!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, there are two big problems with just magnetizing the riders.  The first is that the steeds also have different heads and chest plates, and in arkhan's case the head actually connects to the rider with some pretty cool reigns.  It's a pain to keep those if you're swapping the riders out.

The second problem is that you miss out on actually having separate mortarchs.  Imagine playing a big game with Nagash and each of his lieutenants together.

Also, if you build individual mortarchs, you end up with a lot of left over bits that you can trade to Sception.  I hear that guy's looking for multiples of neferata's steed's head in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

+1 for Yeled's post. I just picked the coolest head and chest piece for my Abyssal as no-one is nitpicky enough to care about that at my local, and anyone who is at your's needs Dreadsocking.

The hidden advantage is buying a metal ruler and having your Mortarchs slide down it on their magnets like a kid in a playground. Bonus points if you modelled them in dynamic, arms-wide poses that look like they're going, "wheeeee!"

Yeah, but I'm not sure how to use the ruler in my battlions. I can't find the warscroll for Metal Ruler of Blood anywhere. GW oversight? :P

In all seriousness, I truly haven't figured out how to safely store the Mortarch riders when they aren't on their mount. I keep everything magnetized to sheet metal in boxes, but the riders don't really fit easily...because legs and stuff. I wonder if a thin ruler or metal strip balanced on large bar magnets might work. Hmmm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sception said:

Eh, there are two big problems with just magnetizing the riders.  The first is that the steeds also have different heads and chest plates, and in arkhan's case the head actually connects to the rider with some pretty cool reigns.  It's a pain to keep those if you're swapping the riders out.

The second problem is that you miss out on actually having separate mortarchs.  Imagine playing a big game with Nagash and each of his lieutenants together.

Also, if you build individual mortarchs, you end up with a lot of left over bits that you can trade to Sception.  I hear that guy's looking for multiples of neferata's steed's head in particular.

*chuckles*

I did have to remove the reins from Arkhan. You are right about that. They are too fragile to be easily switched. As for the heads and the armor, I figured they are just cosmetic so picked the set we liked best (we is me and my son...it's actually his model). You could theoretically magnetize the heads, but that seemed unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm putting my hope on the line that the new book will be all death loyal to Nagash. So they could do Legions of Nagash to make all the old stuff more playable in game, then a new Death fraction not loyal to Nagash later. Don't even care if its deathelves, if they make the old stuff usefull and get something new I will be happy. 

To much hoping and no facts :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to see a new death faction not loyal to nagash.  They've already undermined his position as 'master of the dead' enough with stormcasts, sylvanneth, & recycled chaos heroes.  New factions only partially or unreliably under nagash's control, like the FEC?  Sure.  But undead factions entirely apart from him?  Id personally rather not.

Not that it couldn't work.  If the writers were to bring back the hatred between high and dark elves, and between Malekith and Tyrion in particular...  like if their tenuous alliance snaps the moment they free the elven souls from Slaanesh, that could lead to a civil war, forcing Malerion out of Order and leading to an alliance with Nagash, particularly if Malerion is 'killed' in the process and Nagash brings him back.

I mean, I've often thought it was a mistake to put all of elves and all of dwarves (barring the barely canon chaos dwarves) under Order.  Makes order way too big.  With only a little bit of tweaking, the fyreslayers, sylvaneth, and wood elves could have been added to destruction.  dark elves could have been split between slaaneshi chaos elves and shadowy death elves with a tenuous allegiance between Malerion and Nagash (grand alliance: shadow or grand alliance: darkness or grand alliance: despair) as previously described.  Game would have been a lot more diverse for it, the allegiances a lot less skewed, and they would have had.

But as much as I think it's what should have been done at the start, at this point I find it highly unlikely.  The End Times made a point of uniting the elven factions, they're practically a Grand Alliance in and of themselves, people have and play mixed elf armies to this day, it's just not something GW can reasonably go back on now.  As someone who lived through the old undead being split between vamp counts and tomb kings, it's just a really unfair and unfun thing to happen to your army.  At this point, it would be more reasonable for them to split all of the elves off as a fifth grand alliance than it would be to separate them from each other.

 

As it is, though, both Death and Destruction have a problem that, in a setting that plays out over eight different realms, they really only have any presence in one of them.  Chaos fights for control of all eight realms, order contends with them on six and still has a presence on the remaining two.  But death and Destruction really only exist, and are highly thematically bound, to just one each, and that as much as model counts and lack of releases keeps them feeling like bit players in the overall AoS narrative.

If you're looking for potential themes for brand new undead factions, there's one for you.  Step away from Shyish for a moment, and look at armies of the undeath rising up in the realms of shadow, fire, metal, or beasts (maybe not heavens, light, and life, as they seem more innately antithetical to undeath).  Imagine the magic of those places corrupted by Nagash and infecting the creatures that live there.  What would the results be?  Cannibal ghoul ogres?  shadow vampire dark elves? Ghost-haunted suits of animate armor?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sception said:

With only a little bit of tweaking, the fyreslayers, sylvaneth, and wood elves could have been added to destruction.

GW would never have put Dwarves and Elves in the same GA as they had Orcs.  They would have had more flak than they got from blowing the old world up!

That said, I do agree that the current size of Order is massively unbalanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of people complain about Order being super large, but at the end of the day, does it really matter?

Like what is the complaint directed at? Would Death or Destruction even be relevant if they took half the factions from Order (I'm not talking about Battletome factions here, just the rest of the muck that makes up Order).

Age of Sigmar for the most part is a game about synergies, and those synergies largely live inside factions and don't go outside factions. So it doesn't really matter from a game play sense. And at the top level of competitive play, outside a few oddball lists like Dragonlord+Phoenix Order soup, the top tier armies are largely populated by armies that actually have battletomes.

So Order can have all the factions in the world, but Free Peoples, Dispossessed, Order Draconis, Phoenix Temple, Swifthawk Agents, Darkling Covens, Order Serpentis and all those other factions in Order aren't exactly making a huge impact on the meta.

 

The problem Death and Destruction largely have is that they're shut out of the shooting and movement meta. They don't have those tricks in their toolbox, but neither do 80% of the Order and Chaos factions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2018 at 10:12 AM, Yeled said:

*chuckles*

I did have to remove the reins from Arkhan. You are right about that. They are too fragile to be easily switched. As for the heads and the armor, I figured they are just cosmetic so picked the set we liked best (we is me and my son...it's actually his model). You could theoretically magnetize the heads, but that seemed unnecessary.

I mean, sure, they're "just cosmetic".  But so are the riders themselves.  So is the entire model.  You could just assemble one mortarch, with no magnetization, and just call it whichever of the three you wanted in any given game.  Heck, you could cut out an oval out of a pizza box, draw the shape of the dread abyssal on it in sharpie, and attach a sticky note with the name of whatever mortarch is riding it that game.  Anything beyond that is just cosmetic.  The entire hobby aspect of this game is just cosmetic.

I'm not saying you're doing it wrong or anything, a lot of people magnetize the riders and are perfectly happy with the result.  You don't need the individualized monster heads and armor plates.  But if you keep them, those bits do tie the monster more noticeably to the visual style and personality of the rider.  It's a nice little aesthetic touch touch that is sacrificed for the convenience of using the same steed for all three heroes.  It's a decision that comes with a tradeoff.  For most players, it'll be a minor trade off that they don't mind making, but it's a trade off none the less.  For my part, I had a clear favorite among the mortarchs.  I knew I'd run Arkhan often and Mannfred and Neferata hardly ever.  That if I ever did want to run the other two, it would be because I was playing in a ridiculous big game with all of the Mortarchs together, in which case magnetization wouldn't help, anyway.

So in my case there was little reason to magnetize, especially when it would have cost me those cool reigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the topic of the Battletome, I really won't cross my fingers for anything specific to be included, albeit with the exceptions of a new Spell list. Vampire Counts has a very strong presence in the Magic Phase when it came to WHFB, and I would love to see that make a return in AoS. I'd be happy even if it was just a single list that all of the allegiances got, but here's hoping that it follows the Maggotkin and Aracanite format, where they share three spells, and than get three new ones.

Although, I do fear what COULD be added or put in the book. I have heard inklings of rumors that to achieve a certain allegiance, you must bring the respective Mortarch. That, in my opinion, would be simply awful, even if the Mortarchs themselves are admitably good models in general. I personally dislike bringing named Characters, as I feel that they sort of take the fun out of running your own army.

Secondly, I hope that they don't remove warscrolls and units. With such a small selection, it would be fairly unjustified to remove models. Thankfully, this most likely won't occur, but its not something I like to think about. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Undeadly said:

Going back to the topic of the Battletome, I really won't cross my fingers for anything specific to be included, albeit with the exceptions of a new Spell list. Vampire Counts has a very strong presence in the Magic Phase when it came to WHFB, and I would love to see that make a return in AoS. I'd be happy even if it was just a single list that all of the allegiances got, but here's hoping that it follows the Maggotkin and Aracanite format, where they share three spells, and than get three new ones.

Although, I do fear what COULD be added or put in the book. I have heard inklings of rumors that to achieve a certain allegiance, you must bring the respective Mortarch. That, in my opinion, would be simply awful, even if the Mortarchs themselves are admitably good models in general. I personally dislike bringing named Characters, as I feel that they sort of take the fun out of running your own army.

Secondly, I hope that they don't remove warscrolls and units. With such a small selection, it would be fairly unjustified to remove models. Thankfully, this most likely won't occur, but its not something I like to think about. 

Following the new Nurgle battletome, I'm hoping we get a really good polish of our warscrolls.  There were quite a few tweaks and changes made in Maggotkin, including changes in points and warscrolls to make some units even better than they were previously.

We'll certainly be gaining allegiance abilities & artefacts, but I think it's safe to say that we're going to also get new battalions, revised points and spell lists.  The only units I could see being dropped are the couple we don't have models for, so off the top of my head the Wight standard + mounted and mounted Necromancers.  However I'm hopeful that what we actually see is some new models for them - they have made versions of these models in the past so it's not unreasonable for people to still have them in their collection.

I've not heard any rumours on how the allegiances will work.  The NYOpen Day page on the community site did say:

Quote

The particularly devout among you may have spotted that each of these corresponds to a Mortarch (or Nagash himself), and each allegiance, while using a mixed pool of Death units, will feature its own unique in-game mechanics and abilities.

which suggests to me we may see something more along the lines of the Kharadron Overlords Skyport selection.  I'm not sure there will be a "must have named model X" but I've no substance beyond they've not done that before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you do bring up some of the best and worst things that could happen in LoN.  To flesh the list out a bit:

Worst Things that Might Happen:

  • Special characters required for legion lists.  As much as I like the special characters, this would dramatically reduce the flexibility of these allegiances, hamper their ability to be played at lower points values, etc.  Basically it would turn them from real subfactions with potentially a variety of possible builds to gimmick lists.  It wouldn't be the end of the world for me, as I like running these heroes regardless, but it would definitely be a significant disappointment.  Especially if the mortarchs stay as fragile as they are.  If the mortarchs are required to play these legions, but still mostly die in the first round without doing much, then that's half the allegiances in the book that might as well be blank pages for all the play they'll see.
  • Removal of warscrolls.  This strikes me as... unlikely.  The announcement did say they'd have rules for all the Death models that still exist.
  • Consolidation of warscrolls/removal of options.  This strikes me as a greater concern.  For instance, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see 'wight king with black axe' rolled into the plain old wight king warscroll as an alternate weapon option, in the process losing both the WKwBA's wound halving armor and the regular wight king's banner option.  Necromancers might lose their steed as well, especially as the currently redundant 'necromancer on steed' compendium unit somehow survived the recent culling.
  • Nerfing.  Not even units failing to get better, but actually getting outright worse.  Even with the GH'17 and Compendium nerfs, there are still Death rules and units that people in other factions complain about, the way people complained about Ruler of the Night or necropolis knights.  For instance, the second extra attack for larger skeleton blocks.  Or the ability of zombies to start as several small units to fill requirements then blob up into a big one during the game.  Or the powerful and broadly applicable buff from the Necromancer's signature spell.  I would be disappointed, but far from shocked, to see any or all of these rules removed outright.

Best Things that Might Happen

  • One or more spell lores, especially if one is made available to the general Death allegiance.  Granted it would depend on the quality of the spells included, but this is one thing that we've seen introduced in other books that could add so much to Death armies without having to add new models & units.  Being able to run multiple necromancers, vampires, or liche priests, and have them all contribute in different ways, and all be effective in the same turn despite the rules of one, would be like adding a whole bunch of new characters to Death Armies.  To say nothing of what it could to for the efficacy of Arkhan or Nagash specifically.
  • Replace Summoning spells and abilities with a system more compatible with the matched play rules.  While not completely without value, it's no secret that summoning has edge case utility at best.  Switching to something else, perhaps replenishing existing units instead of raising new ones, would allow that thematic aspect of the undead to have a much greater presence on the tabletop.
  • New units.  Now, we're not getting new models, but several existing units could be split into multiple units with more diverse tactical applications.  Likewise, several of the deleted compendium heroes could return as generic incarnations of themselves.  In the same way that "Krell" became "Wight King with Black Axe", Vlad could become "Soulblight  Tyrant", Isabella "Soulblight Aristocrat", Mannfred "Soulblight Acolyte" or what have you.  Kemmler could become a secondary type of necromancy hero, with an alternative signature spell.   There could be a separate hero version of the Mortis Engine & Corpse Cart..  Maybe dual kit bits could be put together in a slightly different way to make a hero morghast or hexwraith.  The cairn wraith has three different face plates, each one of them could be a different unti.  I mean, yeah, new models would be better, and the FEC treatment is at best an awkward admission that GW just can't be bothered to expand a range even though they know it's lacking, but it's still something.  Just so long as the split versions of existing units don't end up weaker than the original - again I could easily imagine 'skeleton warriors' becoming 'skeleton swordsman' and 'skeleton spearmen', with both being dramatically weaker than the unit we currently have.
  • Buffs.  I find several of our units significantly lacking.  Grave Guard and Black Knights at the top of the list, but several others not far behind.  GW absolutely could use this opportunity to completely rewrite their rules and make them something worth using.  I don't actually expect them to, but it certainly could happen.  If they really want to focus game play and narrative attention on the mortarchs, I would hope that it hasn't escaped their notice that those characters rarely survive the opponents first turn these days.  Improvements to their surviveability would be especially welcome, especially if they're required to run the legion allegiances.
  • Formations.  Ideally, units would be fixed to be worth fielding on their own, and formations would be a nice little bonus on top.  Far more likely is that the units will stay the same, but get a bunch of new formations, few to none of which will have gotten any meaningful testing, and a handful of which will as a result be accidentally overpowered enough to have a real impact on the competitive scene, at least for a season.  At least enough to justify the use of units that currently spend their lives on shelves.  Grave guard as a forrmation tax is a lot less interesting then grave guard as an actual good unit, but it's still better than grave guard the display case bench warmers.
  • New Fluff making Shyish a place you can care about and invest in emotionally.  This is a big one for me.  In particular, fluff that gives the Mortarchs reasons to care about what happens there, reasons that players can identify with.  Fluff that makes our special characters feel like active participants in the Age of Sigmar, and not just the half forgotten ghosts of a better game.
  • One of the legions matches particularly well to your/my unit preferences.  For instance, I like Arkhan, skeletons, ghosts, necromancers, and morghasts.  If that's what the Legion of Sacrament turns out to be, then that'll be a big boost to my own morale and engagement with the game.  Even if the legion's rules turn out to be somewhat lackluster, I'd still be motivated to at least try to make them work on the table.  I imagine many of you feel similar about your own preferred selections of heroes & units, leaving you with an army that, while it might or might not be effective on the table, at least has a strong narrative ribbon tied around it.

 

Right now, I'm most hopeful for: spell lores, formations, fluff, and the possibility that the Legion of Sacrament might line up perfectly with my preferred unit selection, and am least hopeful for buffs, new units, or a replacement summoning system.  I am most afraid of nerfs & required special characters for legion lists, and am least afraid of removed or consolidated warscrolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sception said:

Yeah, you do bring up some of the best and worst things that could happen in LoN.  To flesh the list out a bit:

Worst Things that Might Happen:

  • Special characters required for legion lists.  As much as I like the special characters, this would dramatically reduce the flexibility of these allegiances, hamper their ability to be played at lower points values, etc.  Basically it would turn them from real subfactions with potentially a variety of possible builds to gimmick lists.  It wouldn't be the end of the world for me, as I like running these heroes regardless, but it would definitely be a significant disappointment.  Especially if the mortarchs stay as fragile as they are.  If the mortarchs are required to play these legions, but still mostly die in the first round without doing much, then that's half the allegiances in the book that might as well be blank pages for all the play they'll see.

I'm really not sure why people are concerned about this. Is there any precedent for such a requirement in AoS (or WHFB for that matter)? I would not be surprised to see battalions that require a special character, but even that would be relatively unusual. 

I get why it would stink if GW put in a requirement like this, I just don't understand why people think that it's even remotely likely that they will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

I'm really not sure why people are concerned about this. Is there any precedent for such a requirement in AoS (or WHFB for that matter)? I would not be surprised to see battalions that require a special character, but even that would be relatively unusual. 

 

Well these armies are supposed to represent the personal armies of said Mortarch or Nagash. I also think it's a super over-exaggeration to say that this will kill those allegiances.

 

I mean, at the end of the day IMO it's the natural 'in between' point between super specific sub-factions and grand alliance lists. You basically go from super-specific allegiance (Deathrattle, Nighthaunt, Soulbight, FEC), to Mortarch/Nagash led allegiance, to Grand Alliance : Death. 

The benefits of the middle ones is you get stuff from both worlds. You get the greater unit flexibility along with the stronger allegiance abilities. And perhaps the named character is the price you need to pay for those privileges in this case. Lack of allies perhaps is another.

 

Whether or not it ends up being true, I think I'd be more disappointed if the Mortarchs/Nagash weren't naturally the first thing that comes to mind when you want to write lists for those allegiances. It'd be FEC all over again where you basically have anti-fluff choices being the most powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no precedent for allegiances requiring particular characters, but neither is there precedent for allegiances thematically built around specific characters to begin with.  It's a real possibility.

There's a lot of potential positives to this angle on reorganizing the death allegiances, don't get me wrong, I think it's a good move in principle, but thete are also some ways it could go bad, and requiring mortarchs that cost 400ish points to mostly just die, or nagash who's arguably reasonably survivable but costs twice that, is the biggest potential misstep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sception said:

There's no precedent for allegiances requiring particular characters, but neither is there precedent for allegiances thematically built around specific characters to begin with.  It's a real possibility.

 

4 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Well these armies are supposed to represent the personal armies of said Mortarch or Nagash. 

Everchosen? Deathlords? Even Sylvaneth arguably fits this description. I can see an argument that this case is somewhat different from the others, but even so it just doesn't seem likely to be a mechanic that GW introduces now. Even if the allegiance represents the personal army of each Mortarch even a warhost sized list can't possibly represent the full extent of the Legion. Thematically each Mortarch commands thousands of troops (at least!). Forcing the overall leader of the faction into every list wouldn't even make thematic sense let alone fit with the design philosophy of the game (or any GW game for that matter). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...