The Rumour Thread

[Enoby]

A lot of people on FB saying this rumour engine is nids, but the painting style doesn't look like nids at all - they always paint the grooves on them. Makes me think that it's a Moonclan insect.

[pseudonyme]

Talking about Grots, what do you think the release will be?

Will they « just » expand the range or replace some old models?

[novakai]

7 minutes ago, pseudonyme said:

Talking about Grots, what do you think the release will be?

Will they « just » expand the range or replace some old models?

I think Plastic squig and plastic warboss is needed, The Mangler is still a good sculpt but it in Finecast so I think it needs a plastic version too.

I predicting/ guessing Moonclan may get a few named character one being a Fist of Mork grot warboss

[EccentricCircle]

There does seem to be a pattern to this year's releases, first they update or expand something (Daughters of Khaine for Order/Elves, Legions of Nagash for Death.) Then a few months later there is a much larger new range (Idoneth for Order/Elves, Nighthaunt for Death.) Nighthaunt rolled in a few older models, but was definitely more on the scale of the Idoneth release than the DoK one!

Thus it wouldn't surprise me if we see an updated Beastmen book, in the style of LoN, followed by a fuller Chaos release (I'd like Dawi Zharr, but Darkoath are cool too I guess...) Likewise could destruction see a "grot soup" battletome, with one faction left out to be revised further a month or two down the line (Moonclan)?

If they planned to rerelease the grand alliance books for this edition they would likely have done them by now, which would seem to suggest that they are planning a more substantial replacement for them down the line. LoN definitely seems like it could be the template for that.

Just a hypothesis, but it will be interesting to see what the faction line up looks like a year from now.

[hughwyeth]

3 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

There does seem to be a pattern to this year's releases, first they update or expand something (Daughters of Khaine for Order/Elves, Legions of Nagash for Death.) Then a few months later there is a much larger new range (Idoneth for Order/Elves, Nighthaunt for Death.) Nighthaunt rolled in a few older models, but was definitely more on the scale of the Idoneth release than the DoK one!

Thus it wouldn't surprise me if we see an updated Beastmen book, in the style of LoN, followed by a fuller Chaos release (I'd like Dawi Zharr, but Darkoath are cool too I guess...) Likewise could destruction see a "grot soup" battletome, with one faction left out to be revised further a month or two down the line (Moonclan)?

If they planned to rerelease the grand alliance books for this edition they would likely have done them by now, which would seem to suggest that they are planning a more substantial replacement for them down the line. LoN definitely seems like it could be the template for that.

Just a hypothesis, but it will be interesting to see what the faction line up looks like a year from now.

To be honest I'm surprised at the amount of brand new kits AoS is getting. Compare this year to 40k the last 2 years and AoS is getting way more. New kits take a lot of work to produce, so I'm surprised they haven't yet opted to do what they did for 8th 40k and just release all the battletomes that are missing.

[Overread]

I think AoS is getting more new kits because it spent a lot more years getting very little. Under Kirby fantasy started to really suffer and its marketing and overall focus from GW got less and less. Until AoS launched fantasy had been on a very long down hill pathway. So I think that there were a lot of factions in need of new models and updates. Yes 40K had some armies left alone for a long while, but hte majority had been kept fairly well updated with new stuff. 

[Skreech Verminking]

56 minutes ago, Overread said:

I think AoS is getting more new kits because it spent a lot more years getting very little. Under Kirby fantasy started to really suffer and its marketing and overall focus from GW got less and less. Until AoS launched fantasy had been on a very long down hill pathway. So I think that there were a lot of factions in need of new models and updates. Yes 40K had some armies left alone for a long while, but hte majority had been kept fairly well updated with new stuff. 

To be true, Gw is making big steps right now, in both aos and 40k.

even if some  faction (in aos) have to wait until they’ll finally get some new models or a battletome, it is still great to see how Gw is trying to go forward.

Well still beeing sad about the many stormcast updates, but than again it is an army which most people love and it is very fascinating for children’s with the age of 8-12 .

this is probably also the reason why Gw brought those comics (probably most content about some stormcast chamber) out.

Anyways back to the rumors.

 

[MacDuff]

3 hours ago, Enoby said:

A lot of people on FB saying this rumour engine is nids, but the painting style doesn't look like nids at all - they always paint the grooves on them. Makes me think that it's a Moonclan insect.

I'd love to see Grots on bugs! Stoned bugs!

[Nikobot]

Im not sure it makes sense that Darkoath (slaves to darkness) and beastmen come together as previously mentioned may be the case.  With the release of AOS2 they did the faction focus articles that had these 2 as separate factions. 

Can't imagine this would have been grouped since then? Just thinking out loud. 

 

[Kurrilino]

Guys this is a rumor thread not a thought thread.

All of the last 30 posts start with "i think" or "I wish"

There is a fantasy rumor thread already existing on the main board

[Nikobot]

Fact is it would be a pretty small thread if people didn't discuss their thoughts about rumours.

Unless people just made stuff up... which I believe people have discussed their thoughts on this prior in this thread.

[Jamopower]

6 hours ago, Nikobot said:

Im not sure it makes sense that Darkoath (slaves to darkness) and beastmen come together as previously mentioned may be the case.  With the release of AOS2 they did the faction focus articles that had these 2 as separate factions. 

Can't imagine this would have been grouped since then? Just thinking out loud. 

 

Darkoath might have some beastman type units, just as Tzeentch has Tzaangor. It doesn't require to them being merged together.

[Ghark]

Regarding the NOVA Open convention, do you know when is the GW seminar happening?

Thanks for the answer

[Yokai]

4 minutes ago, Ghark said:

Regarding the NOVA Open convention, do you know when is the GW seminar happening?

Thanks for the answer

7:30PM EDT

[Kramer]

6 hours ago, Kurrilino said:

Guys this is a rumor thread not a thought thread.

All of the last 30 posts start with "i think" or "I wish"

There is a fantasy rumor thread already existing on the main board

Just going back copy pasting 'I heard from a unidentified source'  for every I think.  

[Bloodmaster]

2 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Darkoath might have some beastman type units, just as Tzeentch has Tzaangor. It doesn't require to them being merged together.

This. Most logical release would be a beastmen book, combining all beastial chaos folks. And than a separate darkoath book, for barbarians. Both might use units of one another, similar to the old chaos books in 5th Ed WhFB, but function as seperate factions

[Captain Marius]

I wish they made more units available across multiple armies (not just as allies). The way Slaves to Darkness can be used on their own or to bulk out God specific allegiances is really flexible. Making beastmen part of Darkoath and still playable as Brayherd couldnt hurt!

[Aeryenn]

1 hour ago, Captain Marius said:

I wish they made more units available across multiple armies (not just as allies). The way Slaves to Darkness can be used on their own or to bulk out God specific allegiances is really flexible. Making beastmen part of Darkoath and still playable as Brayherd couldnt hurt!

Maybe I don't want to see the larger picture but I really wouldn't want that. I was even against allies mechanic. One of the things I love most about AoS is uniqeness of every race/army. Never liked those available to everyone units. Whether it was a video game, card game or board game. Those "grey" units kill uniqueness. 

[JPjr]

1 hour ago, Captain Marius said:

I wish they made more units available across multiple armies (not just as allies). The way Slaves to Darkness can be used on their own or to bulk out God specific allegiances is really flexible. Making beastmen part of Darkoath and still playable as Brayherd couldnt hurt!

been thinking about this a fair bit. for instance I wondered why they've never done a few generic barbarian units. They're such a fantasy trope but essentially relegated to just Khorne/Chaos fighters in Warhammer.

You could have some just a few units that cover a multiple of roles that might be missing in some factions.

Fighters, mounted (on crazy animals) troops, shaman/wizards that could easily slide into order armies (ok they're not exactly civilised  but as a former barbarian chieftain Sigmar would appeal to them, or they could be more Celtic in nature and fit into a Sylvaneth force), destruction armies (is it so crazy to think that warrior nomads hanging around in Ghur would occasionally team up with ogres or orcs? could do some great paint jobs with them painting themselves with green woad) and of course they'd work with chaos too, as the recruiting grounds for more hardcore chaos warriors. 

From what I gather human models always sell well, so being able to incorporate some multi-functional human troops into any army would, I'd have thought, made them a fairly decent draw.

 

 

[Enoby]

5 minutes ago, Aryann said:

Maybe I don't want to see the larger picture but I really wouldn't want that. I was even against allies mechanic. One of the things I love most about AoS is uniqeness of every race/army. Never liked those available to everyone units. Whether it was a video game, card game or board game. Those "grey" units kill uniqueness. 

I can definitely see your point, but I've always quite liked them - gives more variety in list building for smaller armies. I play Slaanesh, and without being able to take Slaves to Darkness with the correct mark, I'd have a total of 1 whole unit to play for a mortal army. I'd have more mortal heroes than mortal units, and it would be a very dull list to play and paint. 

I imagine that there are many other armies in that position, and I think it would be good for those players to be able to play more well rounded army. 

Letting Beastmen, for example, take marks is not against the fluff and gives both Chaos God players and Beastmen players have a wider variety of options to choose from. 

[hughwyeth]

13 minutes ago, Aryann said:

Maybe I don't want to see the larger picture but I really wouldn't want that. I was even against allies mechanic. One of the things I love most about AoS is uniqeness of every race/army. Never liked those available to everyone units. Whether it was a video game, card game or board game. Those "grey" units kill uniqueness. 

What I love about AoS is the ability to field grand order armies! Especially with chaos, slaves to darkness makes total sense from the fluff. Not every follower of nurgle is going to be a daemon or a mortal with flesh falling off him. 

[Aeryenn]

2 hours ago, Enoby said:

I can definitely see your point, but I've always quite liked them - gives more variety in list building for smaller armies. I play Slaanesh, and without being able to take Slaves to Darkness with the correct mark, I'd have a total of 1 whole unit to play for a mortal army. I'd have more mortal heroes than mortal units, and it would be a very dull list to play and paint. 

Perfect solution for your army in my opinion would be releasing more Slaanesh mortal units by GW but I know things don't work that easily so maybe more slaves to darkness is a way but then again it might be harder to balance a unit to work with all armies within certain alliance. Kharadron weakness (by design) is weak melee and low survival of troops. If we mix in a lot of generic tank hard hitters it might influence the game too much. Just talking over possibilities. 

[Popisdead]

20 hours ago, Enoby said:

A lot of people on FB saying this rumour engine is nids, but the painting style doesn't look like nids at all - they always paint the grooves on them. Makes me think that it's a Moonclan insect.

On they latest S&Ws podcast there was mention of Ben Johnson stating there are more waves for Deepkin, Sylvaneth and someone else.  They speculated the idea of using the beetle and swarm motif more in the range. 

If there was a mention of more waves for existing armies by a key person at GW the picture could align with the guess of a bug-like unit.

[Mr. White]

Out of curiosity...let's say there are more waves of Sylvaneth. Would that mean a new Battletome? Same with Deepkin. If some new units came out, would there be a new Battletome? So soon?

I guess my perception of that logistic obstacle is why I've been ok with some armies lagging in the Battletome release schedule. I mean, I guess GW could throw a BT out there, but why if they know at some point they want to refresh/update the line?

[Frozenbeast]

4 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

there are more waves for Deepkin, Sylvaneth and someone else

 

I am quite sure some week ago someone mentioned Ironjawz too and at this point seen ORKtober maybe we will see some new Ironjawz goodies there.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Mr. White said:

Out of curiosity...let's say there are more waves of Sylvaneth. Would that mean a new Battletome? Same with Deepkin. If some new units came out, would there be a new Battletome? So soon?

 

 

Well if we follow the philosophy GW always had with SCE we HAVE TO expect another Battletome for those armies which are receiving new models. My personal logic sees the two situation as being identical and needing therefore the same reaction (if SCE get new models they get new BT, ergo if other factions get new models they HAVE TO receive a new BT).