The Rumour Thread

[GeneralZero]

45 minutes ago, Kelsicle said:

Watching Ben Johnson build 6 Varanguard and Archaeon on his Twitter makes me believe that they are going to be strong in this book.

he built nine saying it is the right number lol

[Wobbly]

Going back and reading the blurb in the Coming Soon article about S2D Start Collecting kit got me wondering after comparing it to the provided image of the box.

Quote

In addition to the warbands, you’ll be able to pre-order a new Start Collecting! Slaves to Darkness box full of completely new models that can only be found in this box. You’ll get nine updated Chaos Warriors, plus a Champion, five mounted Chaos Knights, a stunning Chaos Lord mounted on a Karkadrak and a Chaos beast we’ve never seen before.

The 9 Chaos Warriors are there in the image, so is the Champion, the 5 knights are there and so is the Chaos Lord mounted on the lizard, apparently a Karkadrak...but what is the Chaos beast we´ve never seen before?

Am I to literal in reading the blurb? Is the end part of the sentence meant to for the Karkadrak?   🤔

[Gecktron]

2 minutes ago, Wobbly said:

Am I to literal in reading the blurb? Is the end part of the sentence meant to for the Karkadrak?  

 

Yeah, thats what I guess. I think they meant to write "mounted on a Karkadrak, a chaos beast we've never seen before"

[Spears]

4 hours ago, Charleston said:

Also, as expected, Warcry-Warbands with twice the Sprues per Box are coming. To be honest I am a little bit shocked looking at this copy pasta looking box art. Can anyone who has one of thoose kits confirm if they are monopose or can be built in a different fashion?

 

The warbands are monopose but they do have some variation within them. For example the crouching model in the Corvus Cabal can be built with a crow or a spear.

[zilberfrid]

Hmmm. I will probably add Cypher lords or Corvus Cabal to my city. Not sure what they will be, but I'll find a place.

Or find someone with the same taste, and switch out sprues.

[Wobbly]

38 minutes ago, Gecktron said:

Yeah, thats what I guess. I think they meant to write "mounted on a Karkadrak, a chaos beast we've never seen before"

That sure seems like the more likely answer, although it's the more boring alternative! 😁

[shinros]

Please change the warcry rules to allow marks, please change the warcry rules to allow marks, Please..... >_< 

[Kirjava13]

Very pleased with the Slaves release upcoming, but boy, those Warcry warbands being so monopose is... bad, from my perspective. I wasn't fired up about them anyway, never have been, but having so many doppelgangers would be (is!) annoying.

[Zappgrot]

3 hours ago, Overread said:

But they are already as simple as other units? 

Seriously that Untamed link is no more complex than a unit with banners, leader, musician and unit ability - save that mutiple units of the same kind actually have an effect beyond redundancy (having two banners at once doesn't stack abilities, however two rocktusks means you've two models with 2 wounds instead of 1-  for example). That's pretty much as bare-bones simple as you can get, whilst at the same time working within the limits of the box and what it can build. 

Exactly what i  find irritating  the diffrend wound values is annoying to keep track of. At least if you do not know the unit.

Well at least its better then the shadspire units. Those are even more detailed and almost all bad 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Zappgrot

[Grimrock]

43 minutes ago, Kirjava13 said:

Very pleased with the Slaves release upcoming, but boy, those Warcry warbands being so monopose is... bad, from my perspective. I wasn't fired up about them anyway, never have been, but having so many doppelgangers would be (is!) annoying.

Yeah, I actually picked up two boxes of Cypher Lords for warcry and decided to try to modify them so I didn't have any duplicate models. The way the models are sculpted... it's like they were aggressively trying to prevent conversions. The backs of the heads are sculpted into the torsos and specifically designed to only fit properly with a single face mask per body. The arms are partially sculpted in, leaving unique joints like a 45 degree horizontal at the shoulder. I was able to work in a number of bits from other kits, but there was a fair bit of green stuffing involved.  Even the really unique and strong visual cohesion of the warband (which I love by the way) actually worked against me because weapon swapping something from, say, the kairic acolyte kit looks super wrong because it's a totally different style.  The narrative explanation in my head is they've raided camps in the bloodwind spoil or been blessed by tzeentch, but from a pure visual perspective I'm not overly happy with it. Trying to make it work in AoS is going to be a massive pain, and you're going to end up with a lot of copycat models. Heck the leader models have as much detail as some hero models, but they're going to be wandering around with their identical quadruplet siblings. 

The only solution I can think of is to hack up the units into different warscrolls. Like the commander models get their own warscroll, and the rest of the models count as marauders. Then you can mish mash up a unit of 40 dudes from different warbands while still keep everything from getting too repetitive. I don't think GW will do it though, so I'm really curious what will happen. 

[Satyrical Sophist]

4 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

True, but those rules are a bit overloaded ( 1 in 9, 2 in 9 etc etc). Also iron golems are just awful

Iron golems are pretty good already. It wouldn't take much for them to be a solid choice. If they are a markable battleline unit that would be more than enough. 70 points for 10 wounds, 4+ RR, bravery 8 (with additional bravery resistance in the form of the ogor).

21 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

Exactly what i  find irritating  the diffrend wound values is annoying to keep track of. At least if you do not know the unit.

Well at least its better then the shadspire units. Those are even more detailed and almost all bad 

It really isn't that bad to track.

Each warband had a champion for every X.

Half the warbands have a non humanoid with extra wounds. They probably get removed first.

Some of them basically have a musician or banner bearer.

Some have special rules that aren't that complicated.

It sounds like a lot, but on a unit by unit basis it isn't much. It's unlikely that people are going to be simultaneously running too many of them. 

Short descriptions would be.

Iron Golems, weak ranged, reroll saves if they didn't move. Some extra wounds on ogors.

Untamed Beasts, have a pregame advance, guys with big spears can throw them. Cat is worth an extra wound.

Corvus Cabal, weak ranged, ignore terrain like fly, can reroll charges.

Cypher lords. Weak ranged, chance to make you -1 to hit when in combat. +1 to charges.

Unmade. Nightmare fuel big lady fights real well 

Splintered fang, kind of complicated. Snakes have extra wound.  Respawn one per turn. All have poisoned weapons.

In total it's a bit confusing, but you could say that about a fair percentage of bundles of 6 warscrolls.

 

[JackStreicher]

4 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

Iron golems are pretty good already. It wouldn't take much for them to be a solid choice. If they are a markable battleline unit that would be more than enough. 70 points for 10 wounds, 4+ RR, bravery 8 (with additional bravery resistance in the form of the ogor).

It really isn't that bad to track.

Each warband had a champion for every X.

Half the warbands have a non humanoid with extra wounds. They probably get removed first.

Some of them basically have a musician or banner bearer.

Some have special rules that aren't that complicated.

It sounds like a lot, but on a unit by unit basis it isn't much. It's unlikely that people are going to be simultaneously running too many of them. 

Short descriptions would be.

Iron Golems, weak ranged, reroll saves if they didn't move. Some extra wounds on ogors.

Untamed Beasts, have a pregame advance, guys with big spears can throw them. Cat is worth an extra wound.

Corvus Cabal, weak ranged, ignore terrain like fly, can reroll charges.

Cypher lords. Weak ranged, chance to make you -1 to hit when in combat. +1 to charges.

Unmade. Nightmare fuel big lady fights real well 

Splintered fang, kind of complicated. Snakes have extra wound.  Respawn one per turn. All have poisoned weapons.

In total it's a bit confusing, but you could say that about a fair percentage of bundles of 6 warscrolls.

 

Now I am keen on the spire tyrants!

wasn‘t there a Warband that hasn‘t been revealed yet? A Warband  about flames?

 

Edit: Scions of the Flame - if those guys are not revealed soon/not included I‘ll get mad

Edited December 1, 2019 by JackStreicher

[Satyrical Sophist]

1 minute ago, JackStreicher said:

Now I am keen on the spire tyrants!

wasn‘t there a Warband that hasn‘t been revealed yet? A Warband  about flames?

Scions of Flame. Or of the Flame.

[Black_Templar_Lad]

2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Now I am keen on the spire tyrants!

wasn‘t there a Warband that hasn‘t been revealed yet? A Warband  about flames?

I'm surprised we haven't seen them yet and I wonder if their rules will be in the BT.

[zilberfrid]

19 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Yeah, I actually picked up two boxes of Cypher Lords for warcry and decided to try to modify them so I didn't have any duplicate models. The way the models are sculpted... it's like they were aggressively trying to prevent conversions. The backs of the heads are sculpted into the torsos and specifically designed to only fit properly with a single face mask per body. The arms are partially sculpted in, leaving unique joints like a 45 degree horizontal at the shoulder. I was able to work in a number of bits from other kits, but there was a fair bit of green stuffing involved.  Even the really unique and strong visual cohesion of the warband (which I love by the way) actually worked against me because weapon swapping something from, say, the kairic acolyte kit looks super wrong because it's a totally different style.  The narrative explanation in my head is they've raided camps in the bloodwind spoil or been blessed by tzeentch, but from a pure visual perspective I'm not overly happy with it. Trying to make it work in AoS is going to be a massive pain, and you're going to end up with a lot of copycat models. Heck the leader models have as much detail as some hero models, but they're going to be wandering around with their identical quadruplet siblings. 

The only solution I can think of is to hack up the units into different warscrolls. Like the commander models get their own warscroll, and the rest of the models count as marauders. Then you can mish mash up a unit of 40 dudes from different warbands while still keep everything from getting too repetitive. I don't think GW will do it though, so I'm really curious what will happen. 

Thanks. Hard to convert combined with price makes them quite awkward to me. Though I will maybe try to get a few Corvus Cabal sprues.

[Shankelton]

Blown away by the slaves support honestly. I get that its mono-pose, but the amount of variation and customization in troop choices is unreal.

Anyone turning there nose up at the treatment of STD has it pretty good, not gonna lie lol.

[Rogue Explorator]

41 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Yeah, I actually picked up two boxes of Cypher Lords for warcry and decided to try to modify them so I didn't have any duplicate models. The way the models are sculpted... it's like they were aggressively trying to prevent conversions. The backs of the heads are sculpted into the torsos and specifically designed to only fit properly with a single face mask per body. The arms are partially sculpted in, leaving unique joints like a 45 degree horizontal at the shoulder. I was able to work in a number of bits from other kits, but there was a fair bit of green stuffing involved.  Even the really unique and strong visual cohesion of the warband (which I love by the way) actually worked against me because weapon swapping something from, say, the kairic acolyte kit looks super wrong because it's a totally different style.  The narrative explanation in my head is they've raided camps in the bloodwind spoil or been blessed by tzeentch, but from a pure visual perspective I'm not overly happy with it. Trying to make it work in AoS is going to be a massive pain, and you're going to end up with a lot of copycat models. Heck the leader models have as much detail as some hero models, but they're going to be wandering around with their identical quadruplet siblings. 

The only solution I can think of is to hack up the units into different warscrolls. Like the commander models get their own warscroll, and the rest of the models count as marauders. Then you can mish mash up a unit of 40 dudes from different warbands while still keep everything from getting too repetitive. I don't think GW will do it though, so I'm really curious what will happen. 

That's my experience with Iron Golems and Splintered Fangs as well. Planning and dry fitting can help a lot, since some parts are better cut of and swapped before glueing and other are better assembled first and then cut. But who has time and a mind for that when in a kitbashing rage?

Also felt the same way about how cohesive their equipment and style is.

All in all, they are definitely not a breeze to convert, which is rather sad considering even with equipment options they are painfully monopose and a single box not exactly make for a great warband either.

Doesn't change the fact they are lovely kits though and a great base for more freeform kitbashes for DAoS and Inq28.

[Whitefang]

Female ogor characters when

[Grimrock]

39 minutes ago, Rogue Explorator said:

That's my experience with Iron Golems and Splintered Fangs as well. Planning and dry fitting can help a lot, since some parts are better cut of and swapped before glueing and other are better assembled first and then cut. But who has time and a mind for that when in a kitbashing rage?

Also felt the same way about how cohesive their equipment and style is.

All in all, they are definitely not a breeze to convert, which is rather sad considering even with equipment options they are painfully monopose and a single box not exactly make for a great warband either.

Doesn't change the fact they are lovely kits though and a great base for more freeform kitbashes for DAoS and Inq28.

Yeah  I spent a few days doing 2 or 3 models a night, carefully planning out each weapon change, head swap, etc. It was a labor of love, but there's no way I'd want to go through all that again... and I'm assuming  max units will be at least 4 boxes. I can't imagine anyone really wanting to go through the work to convert those units, and all the things that makes the models so good in warcry can make them so terrible in AoS. 

[Overread]

Honestly I think the difference is that the Warcry Warbands began like a large Underworlds game. Ergo unique units/characters with set builds that would all fit into a single box. The models were likely quite a far way through design by the time that Warcry shifted into being a general entryway game with all factions and where GW shifted the warbands from purely a side game model into a main product line model. 

It might even be that the shift allowed GW to make more warbands and allocate more resources to it since it was then going to be a cross game army set. Of course even then the models retained their single-build approach. If they'd made or designed masters and moulds by then chances are it would have been too late to go back and rework them into regular infantry models. 

It might even have been argued that since the warbands would be varied and fit specific niches that the mono-builds replaced the need for a single warband model with multiple weapon options instead. 

 

 

So I can see a non-nefarious means by which we wound up with the warbands. That and lets not forget many games still have mono-builds and large forces do end up with repeats. Even with multi-build options you can often find that the practical limitations end up with only a few viable poses that look good. So you still get some generalist repetition. 

 

Variation would be nice, its a shame we don't have it, but the sculpts look great on their own and I think that once they are nestled within a regular Slaves army (or allied into Demon armies) they will fit in very nicely. 

[Still-young]

13 hours ago, madmac said:

I was hoping they'd say more about the Warcry book, given that they've said absolutely nothing about it so far other than it existing. Mostly I'm keen to see if they're finally adding more playable warbands, the intersection between armies I play and legal to play in Warcry is almost nil so far and it's annoying.

It’s coming. ‘There’s far too much content to cover here, so keep an eye out this week for when we cover it in more detail.‘

[JackStreicher]

17 minutes ago, xking said:

You know if we ever get some new freeguild models, I hope we get some actual heavy Infantry. 

Dito

[JackStreicher]

Just now, xking said:

Maybe some new handgunners in armor to, like in some of the images in my thread. 

 

The FW Marienburg Gunners and Sword Infantry men look(ed) amazing.

[Enoby]

To add to the hope that the warbands get marks, is there any reason they shouldn't? I know they might not end up getting them, but I don't know why GW wouldn't - like, surely it would just end up with more sales (I know I won't get the warbands unless they can be marked) and they're hardly powerful so it's not like they'd unbalance the game. 

[EccentricCircle]

So does the warcry book tell you everything you need to play the game with one of these double strength AoS boxes, or do you still need to get the warcry set for the cardsvand tokens, even id yiu already get the warbands for use in AoS? I've held off jumping into warcry, but would still like to at some point, so its hard to know whether these new sets would be useful in that respect.

Edited December 2, 2019 by EccentricCircle