Neverchosen

Should it be a goal? Absolutely! Is it obtainable? Not even close, and that is part of the fun. I have always loved that Warhammer is a living game system, one that is constantly growing and changing. In a strange way, we become the play-testers for the game and help in a dialectical approach to make a stronger and more coherent game system. I am a big fan of the use of Warhammer Community as a means of reaching out to the community and clarifying rules and points updates. It is not perfect, but it is part of the fun of the game to see it evolve and change. Certain armies may be one buff or nerf away from feeling balanced but often times it is something that the player base will more easily identify than the rules writers. Certain armies get preferential treatments which can be frustrating and some armies are tied very closely to certain rule sets (magic being an obvious example). This were the goal of balance always feels the most stymied as new armies and top sellers will get greater focus and certain armies may be at an advantage due to certain game mechanics being somewhat stronger than others. But still it is a nice feeling to be a part of the overall balancing and rules implementation of a game even if my direct voice is somewhat lost in the shuffle.

I am a really big fan of armies in which the general will dictate the battleline as it makes choosing your leader create an actual impact in terms of your army selection process. However, I think that this should be tied more directly to keywords than to specific units: for example choosing a Lord Arcanum should open up all of Sacrosanct as battleline whereas a Lord Aquilor would open up Vanguard units as battleline. I wonder how this would go if taken a step further and the battleline was entirely dictated by the general? For example Liberators would not be battleline for the previously listed examples and would require a warrior chamber hero as general. Essentially rethinking the concept of battleline from an army tax into a hero tax. A great example in practice is with the Idoneth Deepkin, you can make an Akhelian King your general permitting your cavalry to be battleline but you loose access to reversing the tides. Whereas you can choose a Tidecaster as general but you have to run a certain number of Namarti to do so. In this manner your general dictates army composition and strategies making your general feel more important to the game. Even though the Akhelian King gives access to arguably better battleline it is at the cost of a terrific ability and so it creates some unit diversity in an otherwise stale army in terms of troop choice.

Has this been confirmed? I know the art showcases Idoneth fighting Daughters of Khaine, but is it confirmed that the other tomes will be updated? I would personally love to see an update to Legions of Nagash if this were true. Also Nurgle did technically get updated fairly recently with Wrath of the Everchosen so will they get a bigger re-work? As someone relatively poorly versed in Psychic Awakening what type of updates are we to expect? Is it just new battaltions and sub-factions or should we expect full on warscroll and faction traits to be updated?

I simply assume the crab claw is most likely Idoneth related, it easily fits the theme of the army and between Warcry, Underworlds and the associated art in Broken Realms I think it is fairly likely they will get something (even if it is fairly minor). I feel like people (myself included) tend to assume every single rumour engine is like a trick question. However, while there are often big surprises there are also plenty of rumour engines that are fairly straight forward. I think if the crab claw is not for Idoneth, it is bound to be a strange accessory for the Kraken Eater... if not on the model we were shown it might just be an optional detail. Mega Gargants seem to have a lot of optional parts and I think it would make more sense than a lot of other guesses. I think the barnacle like detail ties it directly to the sea which rules out a lot of the speculated options, particularly as Slaaneshi claws seem much longer and more sinewy ruling out one of the biggest contenders. A regular ol' chaos mutation does sound like a possibility to me, maybe an upcoming warcry warband or even a mutation option from a multipart chaos warrior kit? However, the barnacles would still seem oddly out of place. As for another unannounced army Grotbag Scuttlers would be an interesting option but a barnacle encrusted crab seems counter intuitive in the sky. Vampire pirates would actually work fairly well but I would expect something with a little more of an undead feel like maybe some cracks in the claw. A destruction sea based faction would be really cool but seems pretty out of the blue to me. Maybe it ties in with the flint lock pistol and is tied to a new free guild pirate themed warband? 40k is another option as well, maybe something related to Chaos, Tyranids or some one off thing like a detail on an inquisitor's base? But all of these other options seem possible but far less likely than Idoneth to me.

So I was thinking about the introduction of Khanite's into warcry and how it is a tremendous opportunity to open the game up to new factions*, while still retaining its central focus on the Eightpoints and Chaos. There has been rampant speculation about the next edition centring on Gordrakk's invasion of Azyr and some guesses that the next Quest game will focus on Death. I know that there is a lot of assumptions and speculation in this post but if that was truly the case it would provide a nice entry point for players interested in all of the Grand Alliances and I think would help the hobby immensely. New Chaos players can begin their journey in the Eightpoints, Order and Destruction can fight it out over Azyr and Death players can have a nice little dungeon crawl as they slowly add more hordes into their random encounters and build up their armies. Yes some of these games get greater support and some are much harder starting points than others to flesh out an army but it still does provide an easier access point for people interested in entering the hobby. @Ganigumo I have not seen anything beyond speculation at this point regarding upcoming Shattered Realm books. I do see people speculate on the possibility that each book will focus on a realm or possibly a different Character/God and their association to the realms. *I really hope that Cities get some love from Warcry sometime soon. If not a warband at least some rules.

When I played Fantasy as a teenager nothing was ever revealed beforehand and warscrolls/unit profiles were not readily available. If you looked across the battlefield and there was a giant fat frog on a pedestal you had to just assume it was trouble. I found this really frustrating in competitive environments as it made learning the game more difficult and sometimes resulted in a win purely from your opponent not understanding your army. However, in a friendly environment there was nothing better than not revealing a chosen spell lore, an assassin or some fanatics until they would have maximum impact. But this usually came after familiarizing yourself with a friend's army or play-style so when they showed up with a smaller army you'd often be fairly suspicious... In my case it was always a question of how many magic items I could place on a character. I will say it was a pleasant surprise that it seems standard to share your units abilities and rules beforehand in my experiences with Age of Sigmar. I think it encourages a sense of camaraderie and fellowship that is much less negative or toxic. So, in a strange way I really think that stakes and attitude really determine my views on this subject and that it is something that both sides should agree upon. So I think that this is something that should a) be a part of tournament rules b) it should be discussed before hand in any friendly matches. If one person feels that revealing their list will spoil the game and the other wants to share maybe a roll off: 1-3 you keep it private 4-6 you explain the armies to one another (treat it as a scouting roll?). I do think it is bad for one side to reveal everything and the other to play the cards close to the chest as that creates a really unfair advantage.

I am just repeating something I have seen people asking for in the past. Some people feel there is both an Aelven and Order bloat and this would streamline both. As you pointed out these grand alliances are not explicit to the diegetic universe of the narrative. Malerion unifying the Aelves under his own banner could be an interesting narrative beat to be reflected by rules. I am not arguing that this should happen just that if it were to happen this would be a really cool moment to enact it.

If ever they planned on making Aelves their own grand alliance that would be the story to justify it. 🤯

You are probably right and as @Killamike points out it could easily be from another faction in a different game system. I am just excited for the Aelven love going on and clearly jumping to conclusions 😅 Lets just hope that Orruks, Duardin and even those oft forgotten 'humans' will get some much needed attention in the near future.

I sincerely doubt they have been between the new art and crab claw in the rumour engine* I believe that new Idoneth love is just on the horizon I feel elves in general are going to have a massive year leading up to 3rd edition and then our bearded friends will show us how to truly fight. *curious how many rumour engines were resolved from this preview? I feel like the weapons on both heroes resolved some...

Okay so my break down: Horus Heresy: Space Marines but they are more Brutal!!! For me these will continue to exist alongside all the other Space Marines. Malibu Stacy with a new(er) hat. I am slowly being introduced to 40k but the Imperium and Space Marines continue to leave me cold. Necromunda: These are some dope models. I love the armour and dogs, overall these are fantastic looking. I don't play Necromunda but I am slowly being worn down by the quality of these gangs! If this was the aesthetic of Space Marines they would pique my interest 😛 40K: Necron with Six Guns, part of me is pretty lukewarm that this had a huge reveal and could have just as easily been announced alongside all the other necron/space marines news from the past few weeks.... but that trailer was fantastic and the model is really cool. The two books are decent announcements but I am surprised that there was no new codexes announced. I feel like that terrain piece is a good proof of concept for what I have been arguing in relationship to a guard tower for AOS. But it also shows that such siege mechanics would likely be in their own little rules update supplement book. In the chat people seemed angry at the thought of bringing their own terrain but I feel it will be possible to continue using story/hobby shop terrain unless I missed something? Warcry: I was immediately pumped for this, the board looks great and the factions even better. I was really excited seeing the Scions of Flame and knowing that I would add them to my Slaves to darkness. I was sad that the amazing Khainite warriors would not work well with my army but maybe I could think of a way to proxy them.... Underworlds: Neat, I love Slaanesh and i think the Lumineth are an amaz... IS THAT A SLAANGOR!!! Also Chamleon Skinks are the greatest of all time and if that is Oxyotl I will be one happy fan! Arena of death sounds cool but I don't play Underworlds so I will enjoy it from afar. Overall some cool announcements. Age of Sigmar: I already posted my thoughts on this matter but I was so excited to see my two favourite armies sharing a box. I will have to purchase this and it made the Warcry announcement retroactively that much more exciting as I will now add both warbands to my collection. I do not read much in the way of lore but a book about Morathi and Slaanesh sounds like it will be right up my alley. I am a little confused about whether it is a lore or campaign book (possibly both)? Overall thoughts: Not as much new as I would have hoped but barring Horus Heresy I really loved all the announcements and Selfishly this dual box is exactly what I would have wanted. Sadly, I will likely have to find my Idoneth a good home as I will be starting two new armies. Luckily, I can run my Slaves to Darkness alongside Slaanesh and play my three favourite armies while avoiding some of the more potentially problematic aspects of Slaanesh as a faction. So I was very pleased with these reveals. I will say, I was really surprised at the lack of News for SoB or Death!

I have to have this box... Slaanesh and Daughters are my two favourite factions. I didn't go with Slaanesh as they are somewhat problematic, but adding some Deamonnettes and Hellstriders to my Slaves to Darkness will hopefully not terribly offend anyone. Daughters of Khaine were just beyond my price point and didn't have a start collecting box. Then when one released it was so hero heavy that it would not make a good multi purchase. However, between this release and the starter set that puts me in a really good position to start that army... then to add Warcry on top of it all which is my favourite game system I am feeling very excited but also financially worried. I was expecting to be fairly disappointed with the reveals and spent the whole 40k portion twiddling my thumbs... I will probably have to sell my lovely Idoneth for this though 😭

I feel like having a generic set of rules for defending and attacking fortifications (an expansion and improvement on garrison mechanics) would be a really cool way to establish siege rules. This way you can incorporate siege mechanics into regular games or ignore them entirely or create entire scenarios around the mechanic. Dividing such fortifications into larger categories like terrain 9th edition 40k would be a good starting point. Walls, gates, towers and buildings would be a good starting point for fortifications and then they could have basic defensive properties based on their materials such as stone, wood and metal. This could allow for a very dynamic set of siege rules adaptable to various needs. Scaling and breaching mechanics would obviously be required but they would pose a valuable question regarding army specific terrain. For example could you destroy a Herdstone or chop down Wyldwoods and how would that be balanced? As such it might work better as a separate set of rules but I think with enough play testing and balancing siege rules would be a fun and interesting addition to the game

It is odd how much I am banking on this being the case. I don't play either army but would probably buy it in a heart beat and collect both. Stormcast are a cool army but their ubiquity has always put me off and Ironjawz are a fantastic range but they have always been just a little too sparse for my liking. So I am really hoping that a starter set featuring these models will help me get into either or both armies.

@TMS Thanks for the expertise, I am very glad I posted about my upcoming narrative in this thread I will take up your idea of having an end objective, but I do want to keep up the setting for possible future campaigns. So maybe we can focus on the two primary armies of Slaves to Darkness and Legions of Nagash. But have it end when one side takes control of the region and then if we choose to create future narratives in the setting it can be about an allied army returning for revenge, or if we play a different army a new invading threat taking advantage of the war torn setting for their own benefit. Which is kind of fitting your suggestion of different sporting seasons. If we enjoy it enough maybe expand the borders for a sequel? But as I mentioned to @Kramer we are taking it slowly for the time being as we are just returning to regular social order again and playing pick up games to better acquaint ourselves with the rules and only just recently began discussing the possibilities of a narrative campaign in earnest a week or two ago. Now I should stop hijacking this thread and let it return to the question at hand but I do feel that it was somewhat appropriate to showcase that there is at least one poster interested in entering into narrative play! 😛

@Kramer thank you for the encouragement. I will absolutely take you and the community up on the offer. Both luckily and unluckily, things are absolutely in the nascent phases of development so it will be a while yet. But we are both really looking forward to developing this narrative as the specifics of map control and risk and reward systems will make us both more invested in our games. We are still discussing the narrative in earnest and will take direct inspiration from the armies lores but we are looking to develop a somewhat more hermetic world. I think we will also look into Anvil of Apotheosis as well when we start developing. I am playing Chaos and he is using Legions of Nagash and we have converted a Vampire lord from one of my Chaos Warriors so the narrative is already quickly developing 🙂

Thank you @TMS, I guess I am a little nervous about starting a narrative campaign as much of the creative onus has been placed on me. But even with your brief description I feel much more inspired and I will definitely try and incorporate some of those warcry ideas as I was thinking of using the system in my campaign as well. 😊 We have so far discussed scouting missions allowing the winner to move d3 units prior to the first turn. Espionage missions which will cost the loser their first command point. We are trying to also develop an assassination mission that would be balanced so far we have discussed the possibility that the loser will lose access to a relic as it's bearer 'died'. One thing that the two of us have discussed at length is means of having the campaign stretch indefinitely (more of a grand meta setting for our battles) and the idea that once an army has lost all of it's territories it will be limited to Warcry battles until it can regain some of it's glory and redeploy a proper army... maybe the army will be required to complete its warcry campaign before reaching 2000 points. This clause exists so that we can continue to play in this kind of grand meta setting and not simply play in a manner of pure domination as he is typically much better at tabletop games than I am. I also once saw the suggestion of requiring varied builds to represent different armies to take control of different regions this has my friend very excited as he loves building new army lists. Thanks again for the encouragement, I might post an update in the future as we figure things out.

I am ashamed to admit that I don't fully grasp narrative play. I have been developing a narrative campaign with one of my friend's but it is quite deeply grounded in matched play rules. However, as it is only in its development phase and I am looking at incorporating more narrative play elements. But as of yet it is mostly a case of using a constructed map to determine battles and armies (different countries/provinces will have different realm rules). And warcry matches as espionage missions that will effect the larger games in a few different ways. But I have a deep love for narrative play and clearly I want to begin playing around with it, but I find it a little daunting. Maybe I will make a post or two asking for help and inspiration.

Alright, here is the plan I get excited about the prospect of Grotbag scuttlers for the rest of the week only for them to announce a new 40k Ork army*... 😭 In all seriousness I think that we will get more information on Gargants this weekend and maybe an update regarding the Siege of Azyr if it is a campaign book. As opposed to the driving narrative of 3rd edition (although, if Gordrakk succeeds in breaking the gates of heaven it would still have massive narrative implications for a future edition). So I am pretty confident that Destruction is getting some love. *However, I would legitimately love it if they announced a full on Gretchin army!

I think that GW could have done a really cool job of associating the 4 chaos gods with specific races for their mortal followers. They could have created the elite faction for each mortal god specific army to reflect the diversity of the mortal realms. Khorne could have used Chaos Dwarves for Wrathmongers and blood warriors. Ogres could have been used by Nurgle to represent Blightkings. Tzeentch could keep Tzaangors as their more diverse option. Slaanesh would obviously have some tainted Aelves. This would hopefully not imply that those races exclusively worship those gods, but rather just provide chaos players with more varied troop selections. As this was not the direction they chose I am going to keep holding out hope for a fully fledged Chaos Dwarf faction instead.

Here is my list of rules that I would like to see introduced or refined in a new edition. I really like the current rules and I can see many of my rules being poorly executed or sadly imbalanced. So think of this more of a poorly considered wishlist: I really want the introduction and implementation of siege rules. I also think that this would go hand in hand with a set of new terrain rules. I think the rules around garrisons is a good starting point for siege mechanics but would need some more defined rules to expand the ideas. I also want there to be specific rules for attacking and defending different structures with different materials. In generic terms: Walls, gates, towers, and buildings could be the broad categories and then wood, stone and metal being some of the generic materials for these defensible terrain features. This way you can include a Stormkeep or just a single watchtower to defend or possibly even just have some freeguild defend a small little cottage from invaders. In this way the siege can be the sole objective of a game, or an optional challenge as it is possible to just ignore a poorly positioned watch tower and steal objectives. Furthermore, if it is possible to breach a wall should it be possible to destroy terrain and even faction specific terrain? In this regard it may only make sense for Siege rules to be an expanded game format and not part of the core rules. However, I really hope that they find a way to make it work in the main game. I also like the suggestion of an overhaul of magic, I would also like a return of generic spell lores. I think the new spell lores being tied to the realms would add some interesting strategies in terms of choosing realms of battle and would make choosing which realm your army comes from more important. Miscasts are really fun but they also worked best with a pool of dice as it was a risk reward factor. If magic dice pools and magic levels were to return I really hope that they are much more limited than in the past. I think that there should be some refinement in cavalry, chariot, and flyer rules. I think having more dynamic charge rules would be really interesting and possibly having distinctions for heavy and light cavalry would be great. I think that heavy cavalry and chariots causing impact damage while light cavalry and fliers being able to fall back and charge might give them distinct battlefield roles. I feel like behemoths should use their number of wounds to count towards holding objectives. A massive dragon should be able to hold an objective but when it is on the verge of death a unit of soldiers outnumbering it can steal the objective away. As shooting becomes more prevalent in the game I think it is important to look at its mechanics again but I have no suggestions in terms of changing it. In a similar manner, I feel like the crew and warmachine rules feel somewhat strange to me currently. I feel that they should not be able to move and shoot (unless stated otherwise on a warscroll). I also think that their shared warscroll between crew and warmachine are really confusing. I also want an overhaul of the battleshock phase. I am particularly displeased with the implementation of Inspiring Presence I have suggested before that altering it to use the leadership of nearby heroes would mitigate my issues somewhat. However, others have pointed out that certain armies would be hit very hard and possibly unfairly by this change. In this regard having the reworked Inspiring Presence use a single command point and then giving the option to use a second one for autopass might be an interesting alternative. This would allow high bravery elite armies to more readily pass using a single command point and make low bravery horde armies have to think more strategically about their use of command points. I also think that the new bravery mechanics in 40k seem really interesting. I think that there is a enough that I would want changed to warrant a new edition, but I also think that there is very little reason to rush it out. As for what I would want in a 3rd edition roll out: an Indomitus style box featuring order and destruction followed by a new starter set featuring a defensible piece of terrain for siege style games. I think having a nice stone tower that can be attached to modular walls would be a great starting point. It would encourage folks to purchase from GW while not limiting them to use the ones provided if they have their own preferred or homemade castles or ramparts. As for factions, I think the obvious answer would be Stormcast and Ironjawz are the obvious answers to represent Gordrakk's siege of Azyr. However, I think that maybe a Duardin force defending the walls they helped forge battling Grotbag Scuttlers would be a fun change from the typical Stormcast starter set and still fit into the invasion of Azyr narrative.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/08/17/get-ready-for-the-next-warhammer-preview-online/ According to Warhammer community: Age of Sigmar is getting some for of preview/showcase.

I believe it is fairly obviously going to be an announcement for the upcoming 3rd edition with an Indomitus style box, featuring an epic conflict between Nagash's new Robotic Skeletons of Chamon and Sigmar's newly opened Primaris Space Marine Chamber. I actually think that we might get a hint of an upcoming faction. I feel like with the delays from COVID the hype cycle has died down somewhat and having a silhouette or some other minor tease may occur. Although, I love Warcry and I am surprisingly excited about this new Death Warband for Underworlds. So I wouldn't be that upset if we don't get a hint of an upcoming faction.

So to get things back on topic: there is something I have been meaning to ask related to Underworlds and new releases. A number of people see the release of certain Underworld factions as being potential hints for upcoming factions. I am just curious if this has any basis in past releases? I know that Zarbag's Gitz predated the release of Gloomspite and Godsworn Hunt predated Slaves to Darkness. However, both of these releases were still tied to legacy factions. So I am curious how long between the release of such Underworld warbands and the release of their respective battletomes? Also was there ever a case in the past like Skaeth's Wild Hunt, Rippa's Snarlfangs, and this upcoming undead faction in which the Underworld warbands felt so wildly idiosyncratic to preexisting factions? I am easily won over by rumours of Kurnothi and Gitmob Grots/Grotbag Scuttlers due to the existence of these Warbands but I am curious if I am simply being foolish?

I can't speak for anyone else but I think it would look fantastic. I do think you are posed with an interesting conundrum, do you make the Jezzails look high tech and sleek or do you beat them up and go low tech? I think ether would work extremely well and I really hope you post the results 😁 Also since it appears you play 40k, if you go high tech Skaven maybe you can proxy your Skaven as Ratlings for 40k or Killteam?