Neverchosen

There are so many fun and interesting myths of witches to draw upon from Circe to Morgan le Faye. Personally, I think having a 17th century puritanical aesthetic for the battleline infantry, armed with pitchforks, torches and large belt buckles but also capable of spell casting (similar to Lumineth). I would love familliars as support units, that are capable of buffing nearby units but have no real combat potential (it would be interesting if they were incapable of holding objectives). I would then want the more advance units to start getting into more traditional folklore style witches. You could have a unit of more advance spell-casters with traditional wide brimmed pointed hats, I think a more combat oriented unit of swamp hags might be fun with an aesthetic similar to the troggoth hag. I think a flying unit on broomsticks would be really enjoyable although it would take some creative design work to avoid looking overly ridiculous. I think a Baba Yaga style house with legs would be a fun behemoth unit. I also think the Fimir would make a cool addition to this faction. I also find AOS is lacking in fae folk, unicorns and pegasus and some other traditional fairytale/fantasy creatures that do not fit with much of the current aesthetic but might find a place within this faction. I conceptualized this as a potential destruction army but I think this could also be the basis of an update to deathmages. It would also need only minimal tweeking to work alongside Chaos or Order.

I really want both concepts to be fleshed out into full factions (I know Daughters of Khaine technically have Witch Aelves). I think that Devouted of Sigmar with the option of focusing more on the Witch Hunter aesthetic would be my ideal Human faction for AOS. I have also stated in numerous threads that I would adore a classical fantasy witch army for Destruction.

What criteria are we using to determine this question? If we are trying to determine which faction has the best battleline: I would argue Cities of Sigmar, as it has the most battleline units which are capable of fulfilling a diverse set of roles. Ironjawz and Flesheater Courts are pretty neat in this regard, as pretty much every unit in both faction has the potential to become a battleline option. If we are talking about the best battleline unit in terms of utility: This is where units like Horrors, Hearthguard Berzerkers and Ghouls would fall. If we are talking about individual battleline unit on a model by model basis ignoring points and objectives: I feel like Terrorgheists, Varanguard and a few other heavy hitters might take the slot. Finally if we are discussing battleline in terms of preference: This would become a purely subjective debate and for me it would come down to aesthetics, probably propelling Chaos Warriors, Gloomspite Stabbas/Shootas, Tzaangors or Dryads to the top spot. There are of course other metrics to determine the best and I believe it is fascinating question. I think it would be fun for GW to do a batteline battle royal like they did with the heroes on Warhammer community.

The new models preview for 40k had a number of pieces that seem to correlate to various rumour engine images. Namely that cool dagger which seems to be a Dark Eldar model and the tubes/chords which are clearly something related to Chaos: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/25/the-warhammer-40000-launch-party-preview/

I loved Old Fantasy's rank and file system but it was finicky and non-intuitive. I hope that the Old World Strikes a balance because there was a lot to love but significantly more to hate.

Welcome @TheRadiant I think if your initial interest lies with the RPG that you should focus on the faction that will help you enjoy that game system more fully. So if you play the RPG using minis I would actually recommend focusing on a faction that would function as your most common antagonist. So if your games typically see you in the woods fighting off Beasts of Chaos, or in mines staving off attacks from Gloomspite Gitz then selecting said army will give you access to a number of models to help fill out your scenarios. I play Slaves to Darkness and most of my Tabletop RPG's now feature evil armoured knights and the occasional demon. I also argue that under their helmets they could easily be orcs, elves or dwarves or whatever else the narrative dictates. Then if you enjoy AOS and expand into a second army choose the faction that best represents your character. My second army is Idoneth Deepkin which worked for my gaming group as many of them like to play as elves but some of them prefer to use my chaos warriors for their heroes. However if your group plays as a variety of heroes from various races then Cities of Sigmar could be an interesting choice as it provides the ability to allow your friends to play as a model that more closely resembles their character. I hope that helps as I am not overtly familiar with the AoS RPG or if you personally use models in your games. I do hope to check it out at some point though as I have heard positive things.

I think that this thread often takes on a general news/announcement thread as there is not always a good place to post such things. I have seen this crop up on a number of sites as rumours/leaks/speculation often result in news. Returning to actual rumours, with the awesome Weta Workshop army showcased on Warhammer community has there been any recent rumours regarding Kurnothi Aelves?

I doubt that this would provide an adequate solution, but I have always wanted to see if a rule about counting half a models wounds (rounding down to a minimum of one) would help with objective control. So a two or three wound model would have the same value of other one wound infantry models. Most elite armies have access to multi-wound units so it would help their armies without making their average one to two wound battleline troops over powered. It would still give hordes a strategic advantage, but it would also make certain cavalry and monster units more effective at contesting objectives. Maybe degenerating profiles would come into effect as well for larger monsters? The issue is that the rule is not very intuitive and would bring up a lot of potential debates and further FAQs. For example how would this apply to items, sub-factions, upgrades and spells that gave units access to additional wounds? Also it might be very easy to abuse such a rule in ways I have not considered.

Thanks everyone for the solid advise on where to spend my hundred points. I am also quite happy to see people speak positively about many of the units in this army. I do not mind playing the underdogs but it is refreshing to see positivity regarding the faction as @rosa pointed out. Now I have the difficult task of choosing which of the awesome suggestions to follow. Although @Hannibal, pointed out I can also look at allies for the 100 points. Another thing I had not considered is endless spells which had never factored into my list building before.

Thanks for the tips I am currently sitting at exactly 100 free available points, although maybe I can shore up some more points by dropping my kit-bashed Champion or demoting him to a unit champion... Some additional information my group plays Legions of Nagash, Cities of Sigmar (Dispossessed) and Disciples of Tzeentch. I am also collecting Idoneth Deepkin and play against it in friendly matches from time to time.

I do hammer and anvil style play between my knights and warriors. I essentially built an army around the Slaves to Darkness Battleforce and the Warcry starter set. I added an additional regiment of warriors, a Demon Prince and kit-bashed an Exalted Hero. I am essentially looking for whatever choice adds the most fun in terms of play style.

I am playing a non-competitive Warrior/Knight heavy army and with the current points changes I have an additional 100 points to spend and I am looking for recommendations: I am thinking of going with one of these 3 options: Adding two spawn to my army to grab objectives and sponge some attacks. Adding an additional hero and warcry warband for rally the tribes. A Mindstealer Sphiranx which pairs well with my knights for some bravery shenanigans. Which of these options would be the most fun to build, paint, or play? Or is there something else I should spend the points on instead?

I feel that Sons will release with the appropriate amount of fan fair but being a smaller release window (so far a single new release), so I feel it will have a shorter dedicated period than Lumineth had. I am curious what GW's intended release schedule would have been. Would we have Sons by now and be waiting on the next army... or would we even know what the next army would be in light of 9th ed. releasing. Clearly 40K takes priority right now and considering how good last year was for AOS releases I feel that is fair. Clearly something deathly is coming soon but as people have already posited it could be Warcry/Underworld/Quest related. This lull is a little dull but I have truly enjoyed the combination of speculation and wish listing that this community has been developing over this pandemic.

@Lich KingI can only speak for myself but I do enjoy the mechanic for the reasons I listed earlier. I will say that you are correct that introducing such an important mechanic in a new edition would of course raise ire as it would rework fundamental strategies. But for that exact same reason, I would not want to see the mechanic abandoned as it would alter a core mechanic of the game and change my own personal strategies.

@Baron Klatz I am also excited about the prospect of a new AOS Warhammer Quest... but I am hard pressed to think what I would want thematically. Maybe explorers in a New Lustria or an underground setting with Skaven and Gloomspite Gitz?

I have never seen the double turn as severely detrimental as other players. I am not particularly competitive so it is possible that I am missing some of the nuances as well. Personally I see it as an additional part of the strategy, I would argue that positioning your cavalry in a position in which they might get charged is a fundamental misunderstanding of a core game mechanic. I personally feel it also makes the game more dynamic as it is not purely one person than the other taking turns. In fantasy, and the few 40k games I have played, I feel I can almost walk away for the opponents turn but in AOS I have to be mindful of all the choices both players make during their turn as an unlucky dice roll can drastically alter tactics. There are also rules that effect endless spells and one of Archaon's special rules is premised on predicting player turns.

@zilberfrid I keep trying to convince my cousin to paint his vampires in metallics to no avail. Does the Underworlds teaser hint at Vampires or suggest that they are a long way off. Underworlds always seems to hint at eventual factions.

That is a pretty apt summary of Idoneth Deepkin tbh.

I think that Ironjawz should at the very least have a heavy chariot (possibly a hero option) and a massive catapult and maybe a battering ram.

I am still on board with the idea of giving Aelves their own Grand Alliance. It reduces the order bloat and would make most of the alliances similar sizes. Also Order could still field elves through Cities which would work independently from this hypothetical alliance. As for Destruction proper. I think it is really interesting that there is little in the way of rumoured factions beyond two possible Goblin armies. Grotbag Scuttlers have a lot of dedicated fans who have already made custom armies. Ever since Rippa's Snarlfangs release I have seen folks clamouring for a dedicated Gitmob release. I would normally expect these to be enfolded into a single army or released as expansions of Gloomspite in the future but something about these armies seem like they could work as stand-alones. I have stated many times that the aesthetic and play style of Idoneth and Fyreslayers would have made them interesting additions to destruction but their current lore does not make either of them the best fit. I also think an army of classical witches would make a cool destruction army and I would love an army of riderless wild dragons. I feel a lot of people want Fimir but I feel that they are somewhat underdeveloped conceptually and might feature as part of a larger swamp themed army (might work with my idea for a classical witch army).

Yeah, I have a very strong feeling that there are going to be siege rules that are going to be pretty well tailored to large monsters. The Sons will be fantastic for siege battles. I just love the idea of a giant's head visible over the ramparts as a bunch of Stormcast freak out loading a ballista only to have a separate wall breached. I am curious to know if the new 40k scenery rules would be adaptable to AOS in a siege like scenario?

I hope I didn't give the impression that I would get rid of the aesthetic of Brettonians, I just like the embellishment of a horn or some wings to tie the faction into AOS. I always loved the mixture of the fantastic and mundane for Brettonians in Fantasy and think it could be explored further in AOS. The Green Knight in particular was a nice reference to Arthurian myth while blending historical and fantastic aesthetics.

I would love a reimagining of Bretonnian Knights to place an emphasis on Gryphons, Hippogriffs, Pegasi* and Unicorns and other mythical mounts. I love the idea of a chivalric order that makes use of noble mythical mounts. Unlike Stormcast's strange chimeric cavalry the new Bretonnians would make use of better established mythological creatures. *The plural for Pegasus seems to be a fairly contentious topic online.

I had not checked out GW for many years and was completely unaware of the system change. Initially I was a little displeased with the change particularly the lose of regiments. Then I watched a few Battle-reports and immediately saw how improved the system was over Fantasy. I also have never liked the focus on shooting that is so pernicious in 40k, so AOS appeals much more to me personally and it is also much more streamlined. As for the lore side of things, I found it a touch confusing at first but was instantly enamoured by the open nature of the mortal realms. I realized that the Old World could even hypothetically exist within one of the realms. I constantly see people want the realms mapped out but I enjoy creating maps within my own narrative and like to imagine which realm they would belong to.

I think that would be amazing, I also really enjoy the 1/4 units being from a separate army mechanic and think that Devoted and Stromcast would obviously have such a synergy. I just find GW seems pretty dedicated to having the armies represent single factions and Stormcast are the poster boys so it is an extremely high chance they will take half the box again.