robinlvalentine

What I'm saying is, we've seen every model that's coming for STD now, apart from the last Warcry warband.

There are more monsters they haven't shown yet?

Very doubtful at this point - by the look of it the only upcoming Slaves To Darkness release that we haven't seen yet is the last Warcry warband

Don't know the scale, but just to warn you in case you don't know, the riders are moulded onto the wolves, so that conversion could be tricky. I think you'd have an easier time putting riders on 40k Fenrisian Wolves instead.

To talk specifically about the idea of pitching ideas to major companies: In almost all cases, companies like Games Workshop are actively hostile to you sending them your ideas. This is because, if they even acknowledge that they've read your idea, they're potentially opening themselves up to lawsuits in the future. Say, for example, you send them your bug army idea, and they send you a gentle rejection letter back, something like 'Thanks for writing in, I'm afraid we're not taking submissions but we love your idea!'. You then have dated proof that they looked at your idea. A year later, they release a roughly similar bug-man army - it's just a coincidence, it's something they've been working on for years and it's not at all influenced by your idea. But you now have grounds to say they stole your idea and didn't pay you for it, and evidence to back it up - that's enough for you to initiate legal proceedings. Best case scenario they have to pay out legal fees or pay you off, worst case scenario they lose loads of money or even the rights to the army they just made. This applies to almost anything - lots of people, for example, send their video game ideas to big developers, and they all have to be thrown in the bin. If you've got ideas for new Warhammer armies that you're desperate to get out there, make them and put them out as fan creations - as people have said, that can lead to great things. But there is absolutely no point at all sending them to Games Workshop.

The Kurnothi were established to be their own faction, but thrown in with the faction they most closely resembled (Sylvaneth) and given a throaway line of lore saying they're close allies. They'll surely do the same with these guys - throw them in with Gloomspite and just put in a line saying 'Rippas Snarlfangs often raid alongside the Gloomspite during the Bad Moon' or something.

Are you sure it was LOTR scenery? I don't remember there ever being a forest set for that game, certainly there isn't one sold by GW these days. The Sylvaneth Wyldwoods used to be sold as 'Citadel Wood' but that was for Warhammer Fantasy originally. The details on them are very Warhammer-y and wouldn't really fit with the style of LOTR so I'd be very surprised if they were ever sold as Middle-Earth terrain.

Those tokens actually don't come in the core box, which does seem a bit cheap on GW's part.

Surely could just work how the Nighthaunt work? So e.g. all the existing skeleton stuff would still be useable in LoN as it now is. But then there'd be a new battletome incorporating that stuff + new stuff exclusive to them + allegiance abilities.

I'd be surprised/disappointed if those two weren't just extra warbands on top of the normal release schedule - seeing as the minis have been out for ages, and even their cards were developed for a standalone 'gateway drug' box.

I'm not 100% sure if this is true or not, but I've seen people saying online that some portion of the terrain set up cards you get in each of the Ravaged Lands sets require you to have both that set *and* the starter set terrain so you can mix them together.

Really like the new warbands, and the setting feels like a super refreshing change of pace. I hope they keep mixing it up with future seasons - a totally different theme for each one. And lore-wise I love the idea of Shadespire sort of breaking and just spilling its horrible cursed contents all over the place, bleeding between all the different realms. Turning into a weird megadungeon that connects all dark, forgotten places, tempting would-be heroes with the promise of forgotten treasures...

Skirmish is one big fudge really, so it's mostly just a question of what your group can agree on. If it seems fair to you and no one you're playing against thinks otherwise, go for it. You don't really need to worry about throwing off the balance, because the game doesn't have much balance to start with - any successful campaign is going to require some degree of fiat, rules tweaks, and gentleman's agreements.

They're not fixed, you pick whatever combination of models within the warband that you like. I think the only restriction is you can only have one Leader. Though the way the abilities work strongly encourages you to have a pretty even spread of all options available to the warband.

I mean... yeah, I think you can taken it as a given that there will be at least one new mechanic and you'll need to buy the new core set to use any warband that uses that mechanic. But that's not really a big issue - there are 16 previous warbands you could still play, against each other or against the new warbands, and you shouldn't be at any disadvantage. And chances are that some amount of the new warbands won't require the new rules either (a quarter of the Nightvault warbands don't have wizards, for example). The Undeworlds starter sets so far have been super cheap too - only a little bit more than buying two new warbands anyway. So I don't think there's really any reason to be worried, even if you did buy Nightvault recently.

Don't think there's any reason to worry about that. Nightvault didn't invalidate Shadespire.

Those are nice, and of course you can relatively easily make your own with leftover bits and some plasticard, but what I mean is I'd like to see GW integrate terrain into the game more substantially. Perhaps an expansion that comes with a bunch of minis for traps, obstacles, magical barriers, etc, along with a bundle of cards that allow you to place, interact with, or destroy the new scenery.

Something else I'd actually like to see - 3D terrain that actually fits the game. I think as a concept it'd add a lot of personality to games, giving it a bit more of that wargame feel, but the pieces they put out for Nightvault were just silly, they looked pants and half of them were totally impractical to actually use for their intended purpose.

I'm excited to be surprised by Beastgrave. It seems like in some cases the Underworlds warbands are prototypes or teases for upcoming faction reimaginings (Zarbag's Gitz, Mollog, Godsworn, and now what looks very much like Wood Elves with centaurs), so I'm hoping for at least a few warbands that come totally out of left field. At the same time, it seems like there's some existing factions that are just screaming out for warbands, like Idoneth Deepkin and Daughters Of Khaine. With the new book coming out, I'd love to see a Cities Of Sigmar warband, combining a few very different characters under a unified aesthetic (just to take inspiration from Callis & Toll, perhaps something like a witch hunter, a freeguild soldier, and a scourge privateer?). I think we're also due a new death warband or two - despite Nagash's importance to the setting, it feels he doesn't actually have much presence in the game compared to the other alliances. Perhaps Flesh Eater Courts this time? Lots of fun possibilities with them. I've seen lots of people going down the rabbit hole of assuming that because this is set in Ghur that means all the warbands will reflect that - lots of beasts and savage warbands. But if you think about Nightvault, really only the two warbands in the core set had anything to do with the 'theme' of the season. It could have been called Night Of The Mushrooms and made just as much sense. I suspect it'll be the same here - nature-y Wood Elves vs bestial Beastmen in the core set, and then everything else a free-for-all.

Well sure, but you could say the same about any campaign system. Doesn't mean it's not a problem - there are situations for lots of people where it's not as simple or easy as just finding someone else to play that night. And considering this is supposed to be a system whereby anyone can play a campaign game against anyone at any time, it seems like an issue. It's not necessarily an insurmountable or game-killing issue - as I say, it's the same problem almost all campaign games have, and it does seem to have a few smart ideas (veteran warbands 'resetting' at the end of a quest, consumable equipment, and the idea that you can never fall below minimum points). Just not sure GW's bold claims about how much they've solved the problem seem that credible.

GW has specifically sold this as: a) the equivalent of Kill Team e.g. intended to be a catch-all skirmish game for AOS that will be an active part of the stable for years to come b) perfect for narrative gaming and campaigns If you were able to see past that to some hidden truth, fine, but it's not unreasonable for people to take that at face value and be disappointed if it doesn't meet those points for them. Obviously it was never going to be a new Mordheim, and GW would never invoke that name, but I don't think it's crazy for people to expect a new narrative skirmish game from GW to include some things they liked from past narrative skirmish games from GW (or even current ones, like Kill Team, Necromunda, or Blood Bowl). People are allowed to feel things about things, just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to dismiss each other. For me personally seeing both positive and negative opinions is helpful in informing whether I want to buy in to this or not.

Yeah it seems like shooting is just attacks with longer ranges. It seems like everything's kept pretty short, though - Boltstorm pistols seem to have an 8 inch range, for example. Ranged attacks seem to always be weaker than the mini's melee attack, too (so e.g. a Stormcast's axe is better than their pistol). Definitely a melee-focused game through and through.

What else do people have to go on? This scenario seems to come up constantly in online Warhammer communities: GW: We're releasing a new thing which is like X! People: Wow can't wait! *thing comes out* People: Oh no, it's more like Y. Smug people: What, you expected X? You fools, it was clearly Y all along. I get it, people's hype often leads to them trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (see all the posters declaring the return of Tomb Kings at the drop of a hat) but people are allowed to have expectations, and if they end up not matching reality it's not invalid for them to feel disappointed.

I don't think it's completely unreasonable for people to have high or specific expectations for this game. GW has specifically said this is AOS' answer to Kill Team i.e. the definitive skirmish game for AOS. Members of the design team have also talked excitedly about how great it is for narrative campaigns. It hasn't been sold as a simple board game, one-off bit of fun, or just an entry point for newcomers - it's been hyped as a full skirmish experience for everyone who's into AOS, something players have wanted for a long time. Again I don't think the GMG review is especially good or comprehensive, and there's certainly some harping on things that the game was never trying to be. But at the same time I don't think it's fair to write off people's expectations, or their nostalgia for past skirmish games. This was never going to be Mordheim (or rather the magical, perfect version of Mordheim that people hold in their heads), but GW have very much been playing on the idea that it'd scratch a similar itch.

Oh for sure - that's what's so great about Underworlds, the actual rules are very simple to learn and quick to play, but every game's full of really deep tactical complexities, and even better, every move you make feels really important and significant. For me that's the ideal - simple but tactical, easy to learn, hard to master. @CJPT Great to get a different hands-on perspective, thanks for posting your thoughts! Definitely need to try a demo game for myself, really on the fence at the moment.