Overread

I think the biggest miss is that GW didn't seed them early enough. Bonereapers were VERY much a surprise release when everyone was expecting them to keep rolling out 2.0 updates and a new army might well be one of the two oft hinted at Aelf forces. To me that's the main failing is that GW didn't spend months/years prior seeding Bonereapers as something that was coming to the game.

@FallenSerf great to hear of someone older picking up the hobby! I often feel that not enough attention is paid to more mature people taking up the hobby in the same way as it might be for things like historical wargames (which appear to have a broadly older generation picking them up). It would be great to hear of your experiences in picking up the game and what you've enjoyed, struggled, challenged and overcome with it!

Aye, plus whenever a new army comes along people also wrap other things up as well into the like/dislike. Eg someone who might otherwise find Bonereapers ok can grow to dislike them purely because they think GW should have spent that money updating their Skaven army with new plastic sculpts; or adding to their Flesh Eater army with new model choices etc... So a bit of that also comes along with an army release and that's before we even touch those who have lost armies - even TK armies which were lost years back are still a painful thing for many gamers who might still have the models or felt they had to part with them.

I don't think they divide people the most. I think its just that they are the newest adn thus the I like/don't like comments come far more often. There are loads of people who hate Stormcast; or Wood elves; or Tyranids or Space marines or Imperial Guard. Thing is those armies had their big "I like/don'tlike" releases years, sometimes decades ago. So there's less of the focus on them. Those who don't like them just move on. Reapers are just having their day, plus without a physical release as yet there isn't as much to latch onto for fans of them.

Darn that's a fine cover on the WD! Makes me sad that we lost the eagle riders. Now there's a model I'd love to see come back with GW's new plastic sculpting methods!

Not really. We've some general idea that they might not be a hoard army but not a full elite, so somewhere in the middle. The army photos we've seen thus far also generally support them being middle of the row in terms of model count. Meanwhile the support leaders and the harvester hints suggest that they will be a bit like Necrons in having revival mechanics. This might also include summoning mechanics as well. Indeed quite a few of their leaders appear built for support so that suggests a fair bit of synergy within the army itself. Core models reliant on leaders to provide supporting benefits. After that we've only one ranged model in the trebuchet (which in this latest article is said to benefit from the chair-leader being present) so, outside from spells, they appear to be a very close combat orientated army. Speed we don't really know, they've got cavalry and such but we've no real idea if they lumber toward the enemy or charge at a mad pace. We know that Katacross has a unique system in that the more damage he takes the more his stats improve; though we don't know if that is gradual or in distinct stages (representing his guards and generals around him being cut down until only he stands and chooses to join the combat). It's a neat idea and could be something we see more often for some larger monsters from the armies. Esp as right now many larger creatures often get a lot of focus from attacks to weaken them*. But these are only general points and we've no idea of spells, specific abilities, auras, artifacts nor anything else really. We do know the stats for the models currently in death that can be added, but even then we don't know if they will stay the same or change (GW already has technically two stat and point lines for things like zombie dragons between legions and flesheaters; though if I recall right at present they are identical; but the potential is there to change them between armies to fit internal balance. *you can also get some funny situations. eg the Hieroduel for Tyranids (FW model) has a close combat and ranged version of itself. However the way that stats decay means that they lose more stats in their core performance area. This tends to mean that by the time they've taken equal damage the ranged version can end up better in close combat than the close combat variation.

Well its a well timed mini-tome to get people interested in buying Slaves models in advance of a Slaves update. My one issue is that depravity - as noted above. That 12 inch bubble with double depravity generation is, well, I mean its going to basically turn the current army combo into 3 keepers and hero character. Even if the pair only remain in range of one keeper that's going to double the generation. It's also a flat doubling so you get it if they attack or if they take damage from attacks. Depravity was mostly broken in a large keeper list anyway and this just kinda seems to build on top of that. It gives me a bit of worry that GW isn't really paying attention to user feedback, then again this article was likely penned months ago (though the Slaanesh Tome is also many months old now). The only benefit is that you can argue it helps the army against 1 wound heavy armies where they can't generate as much depravity from attacks. However because its a flat gain it also means that if you're against a multi-wound army you can generate double the depravity off all the attacks as well. It might have been better and a more situational beneficial if it had just been from wounds received.

Four legs might have been too grand for a regular unit. Perhaps a leader in the future might have four or six legged chairs

From the core Battletome most likely if they are not present in the "mini" tome in the wd

Totally informal poll just for pure interest and getting an idea how old we all were when we did (or roughly) started miniature wargames. This might is going right back to your first interactions. So it might be when you started building models for the first time (for most of us); or perhaps you didn't build at first, but you did play with a friend/family/store set of models for a while etc... This is just a pure exercise in sharing our early memories and suchlike. Myself I started way back in the 90s with Titan Legions, moving onto Epic 40K until GW killed it all off. Sadly I didn't get many games back then, but I certainly collected some models including the awesome Imperator Titans (I seriously hope GW remakes these at some stage for their new AT game). So sometime between 1994 and 7 when Titan Legions was still out. So was probably around 10 or so.

Remember there's no such thing as a "tournament list". There are simply good and bad lists.

Don't forget they are all once living creatures of the Realms (most likely humans). Even though their bodies are crushed and their souls reforged into merged hybrids, they likely retain most of their association and connection to their original bodies. As a result it makes sense that the bodies they'd have fashioned around themselves would be more humanoid in appearance. We don't yet know much about their society either, but its clear that whilst they are built like a machine, they are far from machine-like. I think that's why many of them are simply humanoid. Of course at the same time there's also the powerful constructs themselves which show that such creations are possible. Though it might be that they are far more complex to create or could even come with their own problems and issues as a result of the nature of their creation and design.

I can see Ogors happening as GW has teased them before with a model. Tzeentch we've never had any confirmed rumour on being next and its so late now that I'd be surprised to see another Tome after Ogors this year. Next year of course anything is possible. Tzeentch, KO and Seraphon each need a new Tome whilst Slaves will also need their first Tome. Interestingly with more models coming out through Warcry Slaves might be a big Tome, but without the big launch of models as many might be out long before it hits the shelves. 4 Tomes, 4 Months - we could be 2.0 fully by April or May.

@GeneralZero I suspect you might have to put some regular troops into the army for battleline; otherwise that could be a very possible list!

Your tithe will be doubled!!!!

True though we've seen him in official GW photos, just no details of him as yet.

Psst @sandlemad your link just links back to this thread

OOH they spoke of Crawlers in the plural sense!! That means more than one or two perhaps even three at once isn't unreasonable! There's also now only one model that was shown in the leaked photos (only just) that we've not seen - the one hovering over a large skull and apparently reassembling another reaper. After that we might have seen it all.

Eh I don't think its a fair system to basically have part of the games core balance rely on a single dice roll every few turns. Considering that its most critical is likely in the first 3 or 4. That's basically consigning the whole of victory or loss to basically 3 or 4 dice rolls. To me that just seems really bad for a game which takes hours to play. What's the point of tactics, model choice, deployment, movement etc.... if so much of the battles win/loss potential hinges on those rolls. I just feel it takes so much out of the game and throws it to a single chance dice roll. It's not the same as when you declare attacks or charges because those are multiple rolls and individual - one unit might work well and the other might fail all in the same turn.

Eh this has always been speculated but never really proven. I think its more that their method of testing is limited and doesn't tend to be designed to spot for broken army builds. As a result most armies end up with at least one or two broken builds; and yet along the way we also get forces like Gloomspite - biggest release of the year so far (Reapers aren't out yet) and yet they were not considered broken at launch like some others.

Slaves is a bit extreme because its not had a Battletome EVER and only just about functions with some GHB addendum. Ergo its an army that isn't actually "working" as it should at present. So its no surprise to me that they are well below the power curve along with gutbusters and, well, basically every army until they got their tome .

The problem with your argument is that the doubleturn doesn't take into account ranged or close combat natures of the armies present nor their relative powers. There is an equal chance that the army who is weaker will get the doubleturn just as they might not get a double turn or their opponent gets a double turn. Ergo it only "works" for them IF they get it. And that's a huge issue because a mechanic which could give an underdog an advantage can equally give a more powerful opponent a quicker victory. But worse it can actually create a situation where two balanced armies opposing each other tip the scale and one get two turns in a row which puts them far ahead of the other. Same for the shooting issue, again you're making the assumption that the shooting army doesn't ge tthe double turn and that the close combat one does. Again the way the doubleturn works its just as likely the closecombat army gets a doubleturn and can then lock the whole (or most) of the shooty army into close combat without the ranged army getting a chance to get a shot off.

And I've still got 5 sets of chariots! That's a lot of fast attacking powerful elf warriors (with horses or lions). As well as the BFG and other stuff still listed!

Personally I think balance could be addressed far better if the double turn were retried to open play as a mechanic. Talking of "haves and not haves" its an extreme example of it where one player can have two whole turns and the other player has very little to do but roll saves and remove models (esp if the army against them is ranged heavy so there isn't even much/any close combat comeback). Summoning has always been a huge issue because the potential for broken lists. Slaanesh is currently rather broken but its also highly variable depending on the opponent. A Skaven army with lots of 1 wound models can do really well against Slaanesh, whilst a Stormcast army with lots of multi wound models has a much harder time because the SC army is generating way more depravity for the Slaanesh army. If anything Summoning needs to be designed almost around fixed values per game rather than values that can so widely swing and that's before you get to summoning that requires certain models. Again Slaanesh wants to put loads of leaders on the table and summon more to keep increasing depravity. That's not a good play mechanic and speaking as a fan and collector of the range its also not as fun to play with because you get the feeling that there's 1 option (lots of keepers) otherwise every other option is weaker by a distinct margin. You can't even go fluffy with a troop or chariot heavy list easily unless its, again, all in the leaders. Edit - I'd be interested to know what profits GW actually makes from "meta chasers" as in my experience the competitive scene is far smaller than the casual. Furthermore meta-chasers who are serious about it are FAR more likely to buy secondhand models than they are to buy and build new. Most often they might be putting more money in to painting companies than into GW models.

I think GW has taken the first proper steps in many editions toward balance and are starting to realise that fostering a strong competitive wing of their product lines can be good for both the health of the gamer community and the potential sales GW can make. Even just shifting to this new pattern of updating all armies at once instead of one at a time over many many years has made colossal difference (so much so we ran GW out of stock and put enough pressure on their factories that they've bought land and built a new factory in the UK - which is NOT cheap). I think that we still have the same people at GW writing rules so there ar still some legacy issues with how they approach rule writing and structuring. Also there are still issues with data release and management of beta testing in that most times (from what we've heard) GW open tests things by sending out pre-designed lists to gamers rather than sending out the full rules and letting them build armies and find the broken combos and such. This might be something we have to continue to live with until there's staff/attitude changes. In theory a growing and flourishing competitive scene should push GW closer and closer toward increased balance. It's also important to remember that balance is not a single defined concept. Many times balance discussions can go around in circles with people on both sides convinced that an army is balanced or imbalanced. Not every time of course, but many times the imbalance is not always clear cut. This is before we even get into the fact that, online, we have people of different backgrounds and experiences debating with each other. You've got people with only maths theory arguing with people who play beginner level games on a table with almost no terrain with those playing with so much terrain they can't even see the floor of the board etc... So there's huge variety. What might change balance a lot is if GW started doing pre-designed tables like they've done with Warcry. Considering that pre-made battlefields have been in computer games for years and that GW is really pushing terrain sales I can see a itme when the Warcry style of setting up a game could bleed into AoS and 40K.