Jump to content

The Rumour Thread


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, KriticalKhan said:

I don't want to sound rude, but anyone who thinks BoC should be in Destruction knows nothing about BoC. Read any page from their battletome and you'd know they're tied to Chaos at the deepest possible levels, even beyond some of the god-marked armies. And I'm sorry for even alluding to swearwords on this good, Sigmarite forum, but Chaos is in their name, ffs

The name, and all the existing lore, is just words. GW can cast all that aside with the mere flick of a pen. It would be so easy to reflavour the Beastmen as the last surviving remnants of Kragnos' people, for instance - lost to Chaos for aeons while Kragnos was trapped, now flocking back to his banner.

So instead, look to the models themselves. If they're so intrinsically and inseparably linked to Chaos, there should be a ton of Chaos iconography on their models, right? And there just... isn't. The Dragon Ogre Shaggoth has an eight-pointed star, and that's about all. (Obviously stuff like the Tzaangor and Slaangor belong to the Disciples and Hedonites in this scenario.)

GW could choose to align the Beastmen with Kragnos more or less immediately, if they decided it would suit their design and marketing goals better. All it would take is a lore rewrite - they wouldn't even have to change the (vast majority of the) model kits. I think it's right to expect that they won't do that, but the path is definitely open to them.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's mentions of Dragon Ogres in Kragnos, so if there's a BoC redo, hopefully we'll see some fresh kits (they're old af). With the release of Kragnos and the Kruleboyz, Destruction are stepping on the toes of the Beastmen aesthetics (angry horde creatures in swamps/wilds, and Ghorros warhoof on steroids).

My punt for BoC, if we are getting a redo, is that it'll be more 'Chaosy' - more mutations, more chaos monsters (new chimera, hopefully useful Cygor rules), more Chaos god/StD interactions, less of the hyper specialised skirmish chaff stuff. Rather than creatures from the old world woods, they'll be more like creatures from the Chaos wastes.

Of course, this is pure guesswork based on absolutely nothing but my own pontificating.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

GW could choose to align the Beastmen with Kragnos more or less immediately, if they decided it would suit their design and marketing goals better. All it would take is a lore rewrite - they wouldn't even have to change the (vast majority of the) model kits. I think it's right to expect that they won't do that, but the path is definitely open to them

It would be a massive shame for current Beasts of Chaos fans who like them for their current lore, though. And also for those who have bought and converted BoC models to fit into their other armies

While they technically could fit in Destruction with their aesthetic (and a lore re-write), I don't know if it would add anything to them? Destruction aren't usually included as a 'big bad' faction; even now, Kragnos and the Kruel Boyz seem more in the background, considering they failed to conquer Excellis. Beasts of Chaos becoming Beasts of Destruction would require alienating their older fans, alienating those who have made chaos conversions, and then a large full range refresh to bring them more in line with Destruction. In return, Beasts would get access to Kragnos and a range refresh that may look aesthetically dissimilar to their old models for better or worse. 

Personally, I don't think a move to Destruction would benefit BoC much, nor would it massively help Destruction either. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Enoby said:

It would be a massive shame for current Beasts of Chaos fans who like them for their current lore, though. And also for those who have bought and converted BoC models to fit into their other armies

While they technically could fit in Destruction with their aesthetic (and a lore re-write), I don't know if it would add anything to them? Destruction aren't usually included as a 'big bad' faction; even now, Kragnos and the Kruel Boyz seem more in the background, considering they failed to conquer Excellis. Beasts of Chaos becoming Beasts of Destruction would require alienating their older fans, alienating those who have made chaos conversions, and then a large full range refresh to bring them more in line with Destruction. In return, Beasts would get access to Kragnos and a range refresh that may look aesthetically dissimilar to their old models for better or worse. 

Personally, I don't think a move to Destruction would benefit BoC much, nor would it massively help Destruction either. 

While i agree with most of this i cant help but tell u of what GW did to my orks and goblins army that i painted and converted to all look as one army.

They put the savage orruks i had in their own battletome and then put them into orruk warclans.
They got rid of my regular orks and grots.
They made gloomspite gitz where they used the spiderfang, nightgoblins and rivertrolls and added a whole new range of models to go along with it.
The giants got their own battletome now.

I wouldnt rule out the possible drastic changes to ones army. 

Edited by Iksdee
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Iksdee said:

While i agree with most of this i cant help but tell u of what GW did to my orks and goblins army that i painted and converted to all look as one army. They put the savage orruks i had in their own battletome and then put them into orruk warclans. They got rid of my regular orks and grots. They made gloomspite gitz where they used the spiderfang, nightgoblins and rivertrolls and added a whole new range of models to go along with it. Even the giants got their own battletome now. I wouldnt rule out the possible drastic changes to ones army. 

Oh yeah, it's certainly possible, but it would be a shame if this happened to BoC six years after the launch of AoS when they'd already had one AoS 2 battletome as people now have the expectation they'll remain as Beasts of Chaos. At the beginning on AoS it's more understandable (though still a shame) because things aren't laid out, but now AoS 2 has passed which was kind of the house cleaning edition, you'd have hoped they wouldn't make any massive changed this late on. Not that it's impossible, but it would reduce confidence in factions as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

The name, and all the existing lore, is just words. GW can cast all that aside with the mere flick of a pen. It would be so easy to reflavour the Beastmen as the last surviving remnants of Kragnos' people, for instance - lost to Chaos for aeons while Kragnos was trapped, now flocking back to his banner.

So instead, look to the models themselves. If they're so intrinsically and inseparably linked to Chaos, there should be a ton of Chaos iconography on their models, right? And there just... isn't. The Dragon Ogre Shaggoth has an eight-pointed star, and that's about all. (Obviously stuff like the Tzaangor and Slaangor belong to the Disciples and Hedonites in this scenario.)

GW could choose to align the Beastmen with Kragnos more or less immediately, if they decided it would suit their design and marketing goals better. All it would take is a lore rewrite - they wouldn't even have to change the (vast majority of the) model kits. I think it's right to expect that they won't do that, but the path is definitely open to them.

Interesting take, but I don't think it's likely. They would have to retcon massive amounts of lore - namely the whole of 1.0 where Beastmen were heavily featured fighting with Nurgle in Ghyran. Beastmen are also featured at the start of Kragnos fighting/being whipped by Alarielle, so they're in recent lore too. In that bit of lore, there's mention of 'The Oak of ages past', and Athel Loren. My hope is that with the Oak and Athel Loren returning, Morghur will show up again to corrupt it as he has tried to do 3 times before. Morghur is probably the most popular Beastmen character, and is an 'entity' in the mortal realms (see Gavespawn in the BoC tome). Morghur is also linked by blood to Alarielle, and Athel Loren itself. Wherever Alarielle goes, Morghur will follow. 

Then again, in this passage the Beastmen are pretty soundly destroyed (as well as the dirgehorn), so maybe that's our swan song. 

As Kragnos is the book that's most related to our current edition, and there's lots of artwork featuring the fabulous goat boys, my hunch is they're being set up for something in the story. It would be pretty shoddy story telling if this passage was just 'and all of the Beastmen were killed, the end.' There's also the front of the GHB with the Chimera that has a goat head. That's probably going to be something at some point, but then again, GW have a fantastic track record of forgetting that BoC exist.

I just so happen to be sat next to a massive stack of Beastmen models, so I've been checking them out for iconography. Ungor Raiders, the Beastlord, Great Bray Shamans, and Bullgors with Great axes (shields might do but I don't have any) don't have any chaos icons on them. Gors, Ungors with shields, Bestigors and Centigors tend to have a chaos mark of some sort on them for around every 5 models, but as you say, it's hardly distinct. Chariots have a star on the whip/spear guy on the front, but that's it.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Oh yeah, it's certainly possible, but it would be a shame if this happened to BoC six years after the launch of AoS when they'd already had one AoS 2 battletome as people now have the expectation they'll remain as Beasts of Chaos. At the beginning on AoS it's more understandable (though still a shame) because things aren't laid out, but now AoS 2 has passed which was kind of the house cleaning edition, you'd have hoped they wouldn't make any massive changed this late on. Not that it's impossible, but it would reduce confidence in factions as a whole.

If that happens I will personally lead a herd of creatures into Nottingham and erect a herdstone in front of HQ.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final bit of BoC fanboying while I'm on topic. The army itself is in a really weird spot as it doesn't really 'do' anything. Most armies have some sort of theme to them - magic, ranged, undead, cavalry, monsters etc. You pick that army because it has cool models that do a thing you like better than other armies can. Our theme used to be superior movement and ambushing, but there's loads of armies that can do it just as well if not better (SCE). Warherd could be a big monstrous smashing beast army, but Destruction do it better (SoB, Ironjawz). Brayherds can be fast moving hordes, but Skaven and SCE (not hordes) can do it better. Our magic is pretty weak compared to other factions, so that's out the window. There was a time when we were a great range faction (I have 90 ungor raiders) but that's gone too in this edition. We lack a centrepiece (and a good named character - please rebirth Morghur!).

At the moment, the army sell is - 'Do you like running multiple chaff units that explode when touched? Do you want to have an army that can't kill anything? Do you want to paint 100 models brown? Like running away whenever anyone swings at you? Want to spend the first hour of your game setting up and doing turn one movement? Want to run up to your opponent and stop 3 inches away just to annoy them? Do you like a masochistic gameplay challenge that will take you years to perfect until you can reliably win casual games? Like finecast and practically useless monsters that can only really be fielded as distraction pieces? Then BoC are for you!'

Though I sound pretty salty, I do love my beasts, and I've enjoyed 3.0 so far. I've got my fingers crossed that October will be the month we get a bone thrown at us.

 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Dolomedes said:

Interesting take, but I don't think it's likely. They would have to retcon massive amounts of lore - namely the whole of 1.0 where Beastmen were heavily featured fighting with Nurgle in Ghyran. Beastmen are also featured at the start of Kragnos fighting/being whipped by Alarielle, so they're in recent lore too. In that bit of lore, there's mention of 'The Oak of ages past', and Athel Loren. My hope is that with the Oak and Athel Loren returning, Morghur will show up again to corrupt it as he has tried to do 3 times before. Morghur is probably the most popular Beastmen character, and is an 'entity' in the mortal realms (see Gavespawn in the BoC tome). Morghur is also linked by blood to Alarielle, and Athel Loren itself. Wherever Alarielle goes, Morghur will follow. 

Then again, in this passage the Beastmen are pretty soundly destroyed (as well as the dirgehorn), so maybe that's our swan song. 

As Kragnos is the book that's most related to our current edition, and there's lots of artwork featuring the fabulous goat boys, my hunch is they're being set up for something in the story. It would be pretty shoddy story telling if this passage was just 'and all of the Beastmen were killed, the end.' There's also the front of the GHB with the Chimera that has a goat head. That's probably going to be something at some point, but then again, GW have a fantastic track record of forgetting that BoC exist.

I just so happen to be sat next to a massive stack of Beastmen models, so I've been checking them out for iconography. Ungor Raiders, the Beastlord, Great Bray Shamans, and Bullgors with Great axes (shields might do but I don't have any) don't have any chaos icons on them. Gors, Ungors with shields, Bestigors and Centigors tend to have a chaos mark of some sort on them for around every 5 models, but as you say, it's hardly distinct. Chariots have a star on the whip/spear guy on the front, but that's it.  

I think part of why people are quick to want to lump in Beasts with Destruction is that both Beasts and Destruction have fairly weak themes. The strongest common themes that Destruction have are "might makes right" and not being city builders. It seems to me that the themes of Beasts fit fairly well in there, with them mostly rejecting the authority of the chaos gods and having a hatred for civilization.

The established fluff for Beasts places them squarely into GA: Chaos, but their themes don't match up with that. They are awkward in GA: Chaos, and almost seem like they are just in there because someone arbitrarily decided that's where they go, not for any really good reasons. But personally, I think a new book and a few new kits could easily fix that. They don't have to leave GA: Chaos, they just need a real reason to be there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

During the Pre Covid times were there any large events that show off new models this time of year? It would seem with events going back to 'normal' that the Previews may be gone for now. I know Adepticon is in March.

I’ve heard rumour that there may be something to show off at the next big US event. Not sure what one that is but think there’s one in a few weeks?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

It would be a massive shame for current Beasts of Chaos fans who like them for their current lore, though. And also for those who have bought and converted BoC models to fit into their other armies.

Absolutely. Not to put too fine a point on it though, how often has alienating the existing fans with established armies stopped GW from making sweeping changes in the past? I daresay they've lost a few Bretonnian and Tomb Kings players along the way, for instance.

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

While they technically could fit in Destruction with their aesthetic (and a lore re-write), I don't know if it would add anything to them?

I would be quite intrigued by a faction with a "children of the forest" aesthetic that wasn't inherently "evil" or tied directly to Chaos. I would prefer that to be the Kurnothi, but I wouldn't mind at all if it was the Beastfolk, or even a combination of the two.

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

Personally, I don't think a move to Destruction would benefit BoC much, nor would it massively help Destruction either. 

I'm inclined to agree. But GW moves in mysterious ways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see beasts being the first army that is in 2 grand alliences.

The faithful stay as children of chaos while others hear the call of Kragnos. 

I'm not entirely sure what differences they would make between chaos beasts and destruction beasts but dispite what people say I think GW handle things like this quite well, what they did in the new lizards book is an example of this. 

Could open up quite a few cross grand alliance armies such as Cities of Nagash, Daughters of Slannesh, Khorne Mawtribes are a few I can think of. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kadeton said:

The name, and all the existing lore, is just words. GW can cast all that aside with the mere flick of a pen. It would be so easy to reflavour the Beastmen as the last surviving remnants of Kragnos' people, for instance - lost to Chaos for aeons while Kragnos was trapped, now flocking back to his banner.

So instead, look to the models themselves. If they're so intrinsically and inseparably linked to Chaos, there should be a ton of Chaos iconography on their models, right? And there just... isn't. The Dragon Ogre Shaggoth has an eight-pointed star, and that's about all. (Obviously stuff like the Tzaangor and Slaangor belong to the Disciples and Hedonites in this scenario.)

GW could choose to align the Beastmen with Kragnos more or less immediately, if they decided it would suit their design and marketing goals better. All it would take is a lore rewrite - they wouldn't even have to change the (vast majority of the) model kits. I think it's right to expect that they won't do that, but the path is definitely open to them.

Lore is more than just words, and that's one of the most important points of the hobby for many.

The problem is Kragnos  not having something similar to fit not the Boc, and even in  that case, Kragnos has'nt a "beast of chaos" design (he's not gor headed for example and centigors were really different).

Tbh i could see more a return of Dogrukh and some " new worshipper race" (still standard Dogrukh" are different to Kragnos as they are more humanoid judging by the artworks while Kragnos got mutated by the ghur realmstones) than just souping BoC in destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kadeton said:

GW could choose to align the Beastmen with Kragnos more or less immediately, if they decided it would suit their design and marketing goals better. All it would take is a lore rewrite - they wouldn't even have to change the (vast majority of the) model kits. I think it's right to expect that they won't do that, but the path is definitely open to them.

I could see some changes but I think it'd be a real shame to see the true children of Chaos lose their chaos allegiance.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

I’ve heard rumour that there may be something to show off at the next big US event. Not sure what one that is but think there’s one in a few weeks?

I think it is GenCon in US and there are two preview seminars on 16th and 17th of  september.

 

I don't think either that BoC will join GA Destruction or Kragnos .

Beastmen are pretty much confirmed in the new warhammer old world (which is specialist studio not aos studio)

oSbCxUY.jpg

Edited by cyrus
picture format/spelling
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I think part of why people are quick to want to lump in Beasts with Destruction is that both Beasts and Destruction have fairly weak themes. The strongest common themes that Destruction have are "might makes right" and not being city builders. It seems to me that the themes of Beasts fit fairly well in there, with them mostly rejecting the authority of the chaos gods and having a hatred for civilization.

The established fluff for Beasts places them squarely into GA: Chaos, but their themes don't match up with that. They are awkward in GA: Chaos, and almost seem like they are just in there because someone arbitrarily decided that's where they go, not for any really good reasons. But personally, I think a new book and a few new kits could easily fix that. They don't have to leave GA: Chaos, they just need a real reason to be there.

Agreed. Personally I see very little thematic difference between Kruleboyz and a standard Brayherd, and as mentioned in some other post I made somewhere, Destruction are certainly stepping on the toes of the Beastmen Aesthetic. SoB (monster spam), Kragnos (clearly a Centigor) & KruleBoyz (swamp horde Brayherd) all have elements barely distinguishable from Beastmen. Personally this is why I think if there's a BoC redo, it will be more Chaos themed. There's already god marked Beasts (Slaangor, Tzaangor), so I think it's likely we'll see more. They've done it before by giving us god marked battalions. in the End Times Beastmen could take marks, and in the fluff there's numerous god specific Beastmen Herds (notably Nurgle in Ghyran). If there's Beasts that are not God related, my hunch is that they'll be more mutated than what we have now (hopefully leaning into a Morghur Aesthetic). Dragon ogres still have a pretty unique theme that could easily be expanded if the will to do so is there. 

 

27 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I would be quite intrigued by a faction with a "children of the forest" aesthetic that wasn't inherently "evil" or tied directly to Chaos. I would prefer that to be the Kurnothi, but I wouldn't mind at all if it was the Beastfolk, or even a combination of the two.

This. A dark children of the forest Aesthetic is what drew me to Beasts in the first place. I've always been a fan of the old wood elves too. They don't necessarily have to be bad guys, just angry creatures that live in the forest and don't like trespassers. Problem is it's quite an obvious Tolkeinesque aesthetic, so GW probably won't go that way for IP reasons. It's much easier to just make them Chaos tainted.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Snorri Nelriksson said:

Lore is more than just words, and that's one of the most important points of the hobby for many.

From the players' perspective, I totally agree. The lore has a deep and personal significance for a lot of people. Probably even for the game designers and authors who worked on it.

From the GW corporate perspective, it's just words. If they saw a financial advantage in tossing out the existing Beastmen lore and replacing it with something else, I don't think they would hesitate for a second.

When the lore is heavily represented in the models themselves, changing the lore requires a massive financial investment to create new molds. If the lore can be changed without significantly altering the models, then all bets are off. Writing and printing a new battletome would happen eventually regardless (assuming the faction isn't discontinued) - changing the lore it contains is dirt cheap. That's all I mean by "just words" - fundamental lore changes could happen to any faction, at any time, according to the whims of GW.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ogregut said:

I could see beasts being the first army that is in 2 grand alliences.

The faithful stay as children of chaos while others hear the call of Kragnos. 

I'm not entirely sure what differences they would make between chaos beasts and destruction beasts but dispite what people say I think GW handle things like this quite well, what they did in the new lizards book is an example of this. 

Could open up quite a few cross grand alliance armies such as Cities of Nagash, Daughters of Slannesh, Khorne Mawtribes are a few I can think of. 

I do wonder about the lack of calling them by name in the stormcast thing and the starters guide pages.  I think the idea of 2 alliances is cool (based on general, like how the chaos monsters in monstrous arcanum can ally in with a general with the chaos keyword - all they really need is one new type of character who has the 'destruction' keyword.  or both.)  But there is another idea I was thinking of:

I don't think they could ever really soup StD and BoC, but I wonder if it could be split.  Lorewise, the gors are all pretty chaosy, but dragon ogors are less so (i believe they just decided to join chaos after being defeated).  What if the gors went to Std, and the random monsters like Chimera, Cocktrice, Dogors, etc, became some new smaller faction tied to destruction?

A rebranding of some sort seems the most likely option to me simply because that would explain why they're not using the term.  They could split the faction and make some elements StD, but a lot of the monsters, and perhaps even dragon ogors, could be the start of a new faction, be it destruction or chaos.  it's a skeleton of tools to perhaps use.  IDK.

It could also be simply a new name and keeping all the models.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gencon is usually reserved for side games. In 2019 they showed off beastgrave, Aeronautica and the lizardmen for Bloodbowl. 

This time I'd expect to see the full Underworlds reveal, more Killteam stuff and more specialist games stuff. I don't think we'll get another AoS preview until the majority of the Stormcast and Kruleboyz stuff is out. 

If we're lucky we may get some info about Warcry.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kadeton said:

 

So instead, look to the models themselves. If they're so intrinsically and inseparably linked to Chaos, there should be a ton of Chaos iconography on their models, right? And there just... isn't. The Dragon Ogre Shaggoth has an eight-pointed star, and that's about all. (Obviously stuff like the Tzaangor and Slaangor belong to the Disciples and Hedonites in this scenario.)

I picked up some gors to paint for a warhammer rpg and theres at least one eight pointed star on these guys. 

Not to mention that your assumption would also mean skaven aren't chaos since they have the skaven rune rather than the traditional chaos symbol. The beastmen goat head thing is their chaos symbol, they're walking symbols of chaos. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ratboy genius said:

Not to mention that your assumption would also mean skaven aren't chaos since they have the skaven rune rather than the traditional chaos symbol. The beastmen goat head thing is their chaos symbol, they're walking symbols of chaos. 

Skaven are Chaos right now, because of their lore, just like Beastmen. But yes, I agree with you - there is nothing in the Skaven model line to stop GW from rewriting the Skaven lore so that they are no longer aligned to Chaos. They could do this any time they wanted: just put out a new book with the new lore, Skaven aren't a Chaos faction any more, job done.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cyrus said:

Beastmen are pretty much confirmed in the new warhammer old world (which is specialist studio not aos studio)

oSbCxUY.jpg

This makes me very happy.

 

24 minutes ago, Snorri Nelriksson said:

The problem is Kragnos  not having something similar to fit not the Boc, and even in  that case, Kragnos has'nt a "beast of chaos" design (he's not gor headed for example and centigors were really different).

Ghorros Warhoof - Wiki La Biblioteca del Viejo Mundo

This is 'Ghorros Warhoof', a Centigor hero from the Old World. His club is called 'Mansmasher'. His retinue of Centigors would spend their days charging around getting drunk. Ghorros apparently fathered hundreds of Centigors. I agree that Kragnos doesn't have the 'Beast of Chaos design', but it's pretty obvious where the character design for him came from. If Centigors got a redo (which they might get as they're finecast and obscenely expensive) it wouldn't be too large a stretch to see them become aligned with Kragnos. Personally, I don't think it'll happen and they'll just become more chaosy instead.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...