PraetorDragoon

I prefer not having mirror matches. It can be interesting once in a while, but not too often.

Isn't that called "Grand Allaince: Chaos"?

I like the FEC being different from the Soulblights, a bit different identity and mechanics. In general terms however, I don't expect many armies to roll into each other now almost everyone has their 2.0 book. In addition, FEC doesn't share many mechanics with the Legions of Nagash (Invocations & Summonable). To me, Soulblight Gravelords seems to be kind of Legions of Nagash 2.0, with Nagash being handled like he is in the Bonereapers book. Not having the keyword, but can be included in place of allies.

It would be hilarious if the Skaven screwed up and made Nagash more powerful for a change.

Well, we have Sigmar the God-King.. I think Realmlords for Broken Realms: Teclis is the msot likely. Or maybe Batteltome 2? Also possible. Gravelords is possible, but I think they're later in the timeline, so maybe we get some of the Warhammer Quest instead.

The Age of Sigvald of course. If the pompous (less shiny) golden false god and the foolish bone necromancer can get an age named after them, why not the most magnificent supreme champion of chaos?

Yes. From the new pictures it seems like the Slaangors are on 40mm bases. I did fear that, but hoped they would be bigger.

Why? I have no idea. But warcry did introduce 28mm bases for some of the models. The Unmade have Awakened Ones on 25mm bases, Ascended Ones on 28mm bases, Joyous Ones on 32mm bases and Blissful Ones on 40mm bases for example. The new Archers seem to fit on 28mm bases if the brazier is smaller than them and they're smaller than the Sybarites. ---- Can anyone figure out what bases the Beastmen are on? 40mm or 50mm? Seems like its 40 at a glance.

Myrmidesh are clearly on 32mm. I assume the archers are on the newfangled 28mm bases that some of the Warcry Cultists have.

Yes.

And games that are determined in list building are the most boring ones of them all. (I do remember an anecdote where two Warmachine players show up, compare lists, congratulate the winner, and pack up and leave. This is not something what I want from a game.) While list building and deployement do matter, I think that its on the game designers to make sure that with unit balance and with scenario design the impact of a bad list and a bad deployment is limited and can still lead to a tactical and enjoyable game. In the end, I want to play all five game rounds of a match, and not have the game be over when the first player of round 2 makes an alpha strike that determines the game. I don't enjoy those games.

Alpha Strikes that determined the game in turn 1 or turn 2 were the most boring games I've played. Spending the first two turns maneuvering and having small skirmishes, then a big deciding fight in turn 3-4 and mop up in Turn 5 works the best for me. Gives a nice balance between having minis on the table and tactics.

As a FEC player I can't blame them.

Personally I think that having 8-10 unit warscrolls, and about 4-5 Hero warscrolls. Once you go over that you end up with doubling up on roles, and thus decrease diversity as people are surprisingly good at picking out the "best" options. But what is more important is that a battletome has the tool to make different lists. FEC for example don't have many warscrolls, but can focus on a single aspect of their army and make different lists as result.

At this point it just reminds me of Cato the Elder. (from the Roman Republic) "Ceterum censeo Civitas Sigmar esse delendam." (Bad latin, no doubt, as I used Translator Software)