Overread

You're forgetting the 8 Warbands from Warcry and the new furies and raptors and the new beast monster. That's actually more unique sculpts than most armies have had and the warcry warbands are very diverse even within each band let alone band to band. The only thing Slaves might well lose is many of the fine-cast leaders - exalted chaos lords. Otherwise their range isn't too bad. A few older plastics, but otherwise most of it in plastic with a good range of varied units. There is room to update them and things like Chaos Chosen are a bit of a risk (finecast) but otherwise they are not in as bad a spot as, say, Skaven for old models. Plus don't forget being Chaos they've got options to bring in models from 5 other full armies (all 4 core gods and Beasts of Chaos) Also on that extended rumour list it contains a lot of things we've heard of already such as the Christmas battleforces rumoured from the french site. However I'm curious why they are reboxing gaunts and the hive tyrant

Moderator notice I think that's time to leave the "silent majority" debate to one side and re-focus on the core discussion taking place. It's getting a bit tangled up so lets take a step back, cool off a bit and move on.

I like the default scheme, its just not the scheme I want to paint mine as. I think some people are liking the less bone more exotic styles because they play on the whole "It's reformed bone" aspect far more so.

If only GW had put slaves before reapers I'd have been safe. But they didn't!! Heck with the slaves rumours and with Christmas getting closer I'm back to eyeing that battleset from last christmas that is still in stock. However its near impossible with reapers coming out.

Actually they generally don't care about spreadsheet leaks and they didn't react at all to the actual shipment manifest that was found. They tend to more react to photographs of models or of material to be published/displayed. Plus those kinds of rumour are almost impossible to debunk and tend to do the rounds VERY fast. So if you want a GW damage control article on slaves you better find a copy of the tome and a potato camera

Right now I'm thinking Crematorian scheme, but swapping the white and black bone around then using the ivory colour on the bone. Finishing it off with amethyst eyes. Though honestly no matter the scheme I use I never tie down my armies to one sub-grouping.

Depends on the region and if you're looking at GW or 3rd party stores. DoK are popular and the kit does sell out fairly fast, esp as its the only source of leaders (save morathi) for the whole army. So its got a lot going for it esp as DoK likes to have a good few leaders around at once. Use the "email me" on the GW webstore. GW will contact you and also uses it to bump highly requested models up the line when casting.

I figure most of the Slaves release new models are Warcry models. At least for this wave. One day they'll likely update others like marauder horsemen and chaos warriors and the like.

Someone at GW is mindreading or I am That is almost the scheme I want - save that I'm going to reverse the bone colours (majority white - edge black). Though having seen the Ivory colour I might want to go for that! And yeah Crematorium just looks all kinds of fun being able to blow up in the enemy face. Something really nice to take against an alpha-strike close combat army like Daughters of Khaine.

Right now the warbands price up at about the same price that GW charges for most 10-man units in Warhammer AoS. They also bulk up to the same rough number of complete kits to get a full unit. So whilst they might have only 9 or 8 in some they scale up just the same as other units. Troop wise they are already priced at exactly the same price point (heck they are £5 cheaper per box than Witch aelves) Time will indeed tell, though honestly we don't tend to get many spreadsheet wishlists like that. Normally wishlists are just, well, text based. Thankfully we don't get too many deliberate fake rumours

Darn those are some really fantastic Fyreslayers and great to see such a different scheme used on them! Just the sort of thing that should get on the GW community site and be shown off to inspire others to realm specific paint schemes!

If you look at the Warbands and their current rules they are VERY close to Marauders. Honestly I imagine that the on-foot marauders will vanish from sale and be replaced with the warbands. The warbands offering a far better sculpt and more modern as well a niche variables. It also means that Warcry builds very nicely into AoS, which is just what GW wants from it. Plus even if GW doesn't retire the Marauder kit who would want them when the warcry warbands look so much better. Even if you don't use the warband rules they'd ideally work as proxies.

Perfect! A diverse group of chaos worshippers all battle trained and ready for the war! I've said it elsewhere but even if GW doesn't retire the old Marauder infantry kit, I can't see anyone wanting to use it when there are models like this

Best thing is they ARE Slaves to Darkness. Honestly at this stage I can't see the Marauder kit hanging around. Even if they have superior stats people would use Warcry Warbands as a stand in as they just ooze detail and chaotic style. And Slaves Endless Spells already? Darn I might have been right that GW was going to put Slaves after Ogors and Reapers to complete the AoS battletome-ification and then update the 3 remaining out of date Tomes next year. VERY Excited (even if my Slaves budget just got eaten up by Bonereapers)

Morghasts are part of the army. Just like Zombie dragons (sorry Royal Zombie Dragons) are part of Flesheater Courts. The real question will be if the Morghasts change in stats and abilities, not just key words. GW has already established that the same model in an AoS army can have different warscrolls for different core forces and potential (though not fully realised as yet - I think most examples the stats remain broadly if not exactly the same) for fully different performance.

And first update Found this example http://www.coolminiornot.com/366114 and also Duncan's guide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnS1CmgB7ko Though whilst Dunan's method would work it seems that the example above has gone a stage further and used a darker shade ontop of the last layer of red to give the skulls an impression of burn black. The ghosts also carry a great burning effect. Anyone got an idea how to achieve that? The guy's listed his blog but has no tutorial for this model up.

As always with anything finecast or metal (or heck even plastic) if you want it get it because when the pre-order goes live GW will remove anything they want (and might do so in the week leading up). They've also been known to remove on the live order day as well (when it goes on sale). Basically Ogors appear safe at present, but if there's any you seriously want get them. Otherwise carry on and save up for Feast of Bones

This appeared on GW Facebook

Eh Ogors don't have a huge model line. You get basic troops basic ranged and basic large plastic heavy support. If you don't have ogors or don't have many its basically an auto buy as you will use everything. Same for bonereapers, the only issue some of us have is that GW spent a month encouraging us to get morghasts and then put morghasts in the box as well (I'd honestly have preferred a unit of cavalry). But again its basic troops and troop support - again quite core units for the army.

I think its a very sensible assumption. GW right now has established a clear policy of supporting all armies on the same rules version at once. They began it with 40K when they advanced to the new edition with Index's and then proceeded to update every 40K army with a Codex one after the other (sometimes two at once or very close) over around a year and half or so. Alongside AoS was floundering going through management and very obvious total rebuilds of its product direction. It also had to wait for 40K to basically step aside and leave the release windows a bit more open. Since (actually just before) 2.0 launched we've seen GW take the same attitude. Whilst AoS didn't have as good an "index" system it was bare-bones functional for all armies and since then GW has upgraded almost the entire game to 2.0. In fact there's only 4 more battletomes to go after Ogors and Reapers. And of those 4 only 1 is for an army that never had a Battletome (slaves ot darkness). I fully expect GW to keep up the current pace of 2.0 Battletomes for AoS until they are finished.

There are basically two ways to run a gun-line style army. 1) Fast movement and relocation. Fire and move. Basically aiming to stay out of close combat range by moving back or to the side whilst at the same time being able to fire shots at the enemy. Whittling them down and either breaking them or rendering them a null issue if they make it to close combat with your predominantly ranged units. In AoS this is a bit harder as you don't have transports, so units have to rely on their own movement and its easier for enemy close combat troops to close distance with them. 2) Tarpits. Weaker close combat units that are never the less hard to kill. They might not do much killing themselves, but they will hold the line. This lets you block off approach avenues and hold terrain whilst letting your ranged units shoot over with impunity. Whilst this breaks the idea of an all ranged army, it gives you protecting that you will sorely need and many ranged dominant armies that can't fast relocate, will make extensive use of tarpit units. The third kind, of course, is entrenched defences. Such as a castle wall or trenches. Since AoS doesn't really use either of those in standard games its not a consideration for standard games. Were it to happen its basically increasing the time it takes for the enemy to reach ranged units, whilst at the same time letting those units fire into the enemy. Often as not it also confers a protective bonus on the ranged units to aid in protecting them from enemy ranged fire.

The Cauldron with its Battlebroth ability sounds powerful for a multiwound army. Time it right and you can seriously up your game getting that big 36 inch heal on most of the army on a standard battlefield. In a way its a shame is only D3 heal. I'm also curious as it says that a mawpot is either full or empty and it starts the game full and one heal use empties it. Based on that wording I'm assuming that there's a way to fill it back up again otherwise they'd have just said it has a one time use ability. Also GW did mention in the overview about having more than one in the army so perhaps this is terrain that might have a cost for taking more than one, whilst most others are a one time affair (however it could also just be the community team being creative with descriptions).

Not only am I not an expert with paint but I'm also not an expert with photoshop! The above is only a rough mock-up so temper it with the following: Armour - bronze with metallic paints (yeah it looks more like leather in the photo). Also used on edge armour for some decorations such as the skull on the helmet above. Base bone - the default colour scheme that GW has gone - might also swap for bone-white. Inner to bones - orange/fire. It doesn't show as well on a small warrior like this, but on constructs all the internal skulls would be burning as well to give them an inner fire effect. Not sure how well this can be achieved on a smaller model and for smaller gaps Edge bone of armour - black (probably darker and with a bit less highlighting than it on show above) Cloth - leather, might experiment with some white "wear" to the edges Eyes - glowing purple. I wanted to highlight the eyes and have them different to the blazing fire concept for the rest of the bodies. I feel this makes them stand out rather than get lost in the background internal fire aspect Jewels - red Glint decoration - Gold Sword metals - silver. Not as happy with this one and REALLY not sure what to do with "soul" weapons esp things that have a half of souls. I feel like it needs a coloured tint edge to the blade which can then form the "ghost" colour for the faction (I've no idea what ghost colour to use for the above scheme) Any thoughts on methods that can be used to achive "inner fire" effects would be great, esp on very small areas like in the model above. In addition I've really no idea if this scheme "works" nor what "ghost" colour would suit such an army. Of course inner fire might suggest burning blazing ghosts in reds and oranges

I think there's a bit less Ogor buzz, but at the same time Ogors haven't had as much marketing push by GW. In fact most people were expecting Ogors in a months time or so because until Sunday GW hadn't mentioned Ogors. That said I'm sure that with Ogors getting two armies mashed into one there will be many beastclaw players and potential ogor players now eager to get their hands on the new army. Heck some might not even have picked up on the news yet (not everyone is glued to the GW website).

Fix depravity and Slaanesh would hopefully come down into A. Of the D and F groups the only oddity is seeing Beasts of Chaos in terms of Battletome support since Seraphon, KO, Slaves to Darkness and the others in that block are all without a 2.0 Battletome. In theory Beastclaw Raiders and Gutbusters should rise up once Ogors launches. I'd say if Warhammer can get to a sensible A to C ranking and then squeeze on that some to push the C's up into B then that's a darn good set of balance in general at least at the competitive end. Also note whilst meta-hunting armies DOES happen, some of the top tier is going to be based on player skill not just the army. So some armies might appear higher than their maths might suggest because of variations in player skill coming into play as well. Heck I've known armies in other games (or army combos) to be ignored as underpowered until someone wins with it at a tournament and the whole online meta attitude toward it changes almost overnight.