Neverchosen

Yeah it is going to be an interesting time seeing how these characters all interact with the new rules and the more prominent characters are all going to have the biggest changes. I am interested in seeing what happens to ye ol' Celestant Prime. For being Sigmar's right hand, this character has always felt like a slight afterthought on the battlefield which will now be compounded by a lack of Monster keyword. But it is very apparent that SCE are going to get an update to their rules and I can see ol' Prime getting a second swing at greatness. Although the Stardrake has always put the Prime in an odd position as both the named leader of the faction but also the discount centre piece for the army. I wonder if making him a priest would benefit his role on the battlefield? Either way it is a stunning model and cool character that feels like a forgotten alternate choice to the many other cool centre pieces in the army. Yndrasta also compounds this issue by doing the angel thing in a more classical style... I do like that the other major players all feel like they are going to get much better and GW either paired them with monsters or made them into monsters. I think the Celestant Prime is on my mind as I am hoping to get the Star Drake this model better fits my budget.

New Article about command abilities, I feel we have heard about most of these already (although I don't recognize re-deploy) but I really love the illustration: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/12/theres-no-more-pesky-downtime-in-the-new-edition-thanks-to-these-command-abilities/

I find that Archaon point cost to be phenomenally expensive but he benefits greatly from the new heroic abilities and monster abilities. I was hoping to get Dominion and add a Stardrake and have it round out to aprox. 2000 points for a small force of angelic knights. But with this drastic a point increase maybe I should scratch my dragon itch with a less costly Lord on Dracoth, as I suspect I will barely be able to include an additional battleline unit with this level of point increase 😮 Also with the change to Chaos Warrior's min unit size if they still share basic stats with liberators this will provide some more variety between the two units. I am getting more and more interested in how points costs will shake out in the transition between editions. Where are all the points leaks coming from the new General's handbook?

I posted a response about my personal excitement for the new edition and some reservations on the thread discussing the scope of change for 3.0, and I must say I absolutely agree with you my friend. I feel a lot of the anxiety stems from people who are used to a certain style of play. They are mostly worrying about adapting to the new rule system. With such a big set of rule changes there will invariably be concern but it is really telling how people are often saying how this rule impacts 'my army', when often that rule is actually impacting the game. That does not mean that certain rules are not disproportionately impacting certain factions, just that this is a shared anxiety amongst players. I will say that I particularly see a lot of players for many top tier armies, who seem the most hesitant... I want to believe that is GW focusing on balancing the rules that made those armies so dominate... but I also find that a lot of the people playing top tier armies are meta chasers and this will drastically impact the meta so it may just be a more biased perspective.

I had a very long and eventful day and it is possible I will be an inarticulate mess in covering my initial thoughts on many of these new rules, leaks and reveals. I apologize in advance for the lengthy post and often stream of consciousness styled musings. I will state that overall I agree that the changes feel quite drastic and I am both excited and nervous to see what each leak and article reveals. 🤔 Admittedly the changes do feel quite large and always with such changes there is a feeling of hesitancy and trepidation. However, I personally feel cautiously optimistic about almost everything, but it does loose the simplicity that made this game so new player friendly. It was a really fantastic way to introduce my hobby to friends and family many of whom were a little intimidated by past experiences with wargames. Yet, In a way I feel like I am getting back many of the aspects that made me love Warhammer Fantasy without many of the things that I think made that game utterly unwieldy at the best of times. I also have developed a small group of friends that are into the hobby so I feel less pressure of showing new people (although I will always prefer inclusive rulesets). I do think that GW is a little optimistic at how well the current tomes will translate to the new edition considering the breadth of changes but we shall see. Hopefully in play testing they prioritize the books that are least suited for this edition rather than simply go through them in order of which one has been the longest since it's last update (especially as that will likely still involve updating the oldest tomes first). The change to table sizes is a great thing in terms of living in a condo in a massive urban centre. It was really difficult to play having to rely on going to local game stores or the few friends that have room for such massive playing spaces. Now we are open to play at many of our homes which is a fantastic feeling. Even if dimensionally my table is a touch too narrow and slightly too long (I hope those dimensions balance out somewhat). The table size will have an effect on shooting which otherwise seems more or less the same. Higher point costs is a good thing as I am looking to start a new order faction and do not want to create a major collection but it is also something that will change each year and likely trend downward. Hopefully due to the table size this will not be a huge downward trend... heck maybe I will be able to afford Lumineth or Fyreslayers if the points are high enough 😅 I think tighter Unit Cohesion is actually a good thing and I like the more regimental troop arrangements. Visually and strategically I prefer this style than seeing a massive unit break rank and wrap around a blob which always seemed really weird in a loosely historical setting. I do feel the frustration for specific unit types and hope there is some clarification as keeping together units of ogres, trogoths and goregruntas will be a chore. This is one of the most controversial rules and for good reason but I am hopeful that it will have fun strategic implementations. But people much smarter than I am are a little worried, so I am probably missing the obvious. The Hero and Monster rules are a massive win for me. I think that in the epic saga of Gods and Beasts making them more central to the game will help make the paratextual and personal narratives feel more rich. The hero and monster abilities all seem really fun and I love that they have made the combination of monster and hero something truly desirable and suitably epic. Of course this will result in more precarious balance as heroes and monsters may become easily overpowered, so I hope that they will balance units with more hero and monster slaying skills. The command points and command abilities will potentially require more bookkeeping, but I think sound like an improvement to the current case of certain armies drowning in command points while others struggle to gain them at all. I also think the number of generic command abilities makes certain heroes own warscroll abilities feel a touch redundant. But I hope they keep this in mind when updating the battletomes. I was frustrated about the unit size thing but only because I just finished my Slaves to Darkness army and my units sizes do not work perfectly with the new rules. I hate converting models but none of my friends are stickler's for WYSIWG so I can add the overflow of my 20 model shield unit into one of my 5 model dual weapon units. I will also use this as incentive to buy Khagra's Ravagers to give me two alternate Chaos Warriors incase they increase the unit size to 10 so they can replace the Standard Bearer and musician in a unit and I can merge the 5 model units into 10 and leave my Sword and shield unit untouched. I will also get two new heroes that I have wanted for a while. Battalions were one of the things I most disliked in AOS they never felt particularly balanced and were often taken only to lower drop counts or to gain a command point. I think that this new system is applicable to most army compositions and the rewards for taking the battalions feel actually related to their battlefield role. I do think it is sad that certain battalions with narrative functions or important rules will vanish but I think some of these compositions and rules could be included as the basis of new army Subfactions. However, without the key limitations and the feeling that I have to buy certain units that do not interest me. Turn order changes are nice, but I was never particularly against the priority roll off. However, giving more consideration for the roll is ideal as it makes the choice of aiming for a double turn less of a case of always purely benefiting the double turn. I am still not interested in purchasing endless spells but I much prefer what we have seen of the new rules than the older ones. I like the upgrades on the priests and as I run a number in both of my armies this will benefit many other units that always felt like lame wizards. The new models are fantastic and some of the best I have seen for either of their respective lines and if this quality keeps up I am afraid of what will happen to my money. I feel like the lore is improving and the setting of Ghur and focus on Destruction are really exciting. We are also getting an expansion of the pantheon with the likes of Morathi and Kragnos while also getting a greater emphasis on mortal character perspectives. I do find the aesthetic of the new warscrolls pleasing but the icons for the battalions are a miss for me and I spent a lot of my academic career focusing on semiotics. But eventually I will grow accustomed to them and they do look cool I just hate using a key to understand things that could be simply written out. I am still holding out hope for new and more involved terrain rules particularly for siege purposes and also for the much lauded but not truly rumoured idea of wandering beasts. I do think that monsters straight up destroying defensible terrain means that we will likely see some rules but less involved than I initially had hoped. There are probably a host of other thoughts I will share at some point, but it has been a long day and I am exhausted. Writing out my thoughts and feelings on the update show a mixture of excitement and worry. I am hopeful about the new edition and I personally like the majority of changes but I can also see why others are concerned. I truly do emphasize as I have my own concerns, but I really hope people try out the rules before just tossing them aside. Also I look forward to chatting on here about the rules as we develop strategies and try and make sense of anything that is particularly vague opaque in terms of rules, wording and balance. 😁 And if the rules do suck then at least we'll always have Critters and Keys.

I still want the rules for chaos to change into the 1/4 CoS style. I want an undivided general to be able to take allies from an undivided army so in this case BoC and S2D. I want a marked general to take armies from a shared mark... So a Tzangor Shaman can have 1/4 DoT units or marked S2D. I think it would give more people reasons to run Beasts of Chaos and Slaves to Darkness instead of just redundantly stuffing them into a god specific factions. It also gives them access to certain tools without taking away from the unique identity of the God Specific factions. Skaven work really well as an independent faction with only Pestilence and Nurgle tying them to the broader alliances.

I like them for their awesome galleries, but the strategies listed are typically along the lines of Cavalry are fast and with this new command ability they are even faster. Add endless spells to make your wizard more deadly. Grots may not seem strong but become a lot more powerful when fighting in large hordes. Fun stuff that is great for beginners trying to decide an army and get a hang of the rules... just hard to swallow for those of us jonesing for some new edition info. Speaking of which here is the new article full of great art and army shots and generic strategies: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/11/the-new-edition-is-a-buffet-of-delights-for-the-hedonites-of-slaanesh/

*Sad Crab noise*

I really like the battalions but 'Warlord' and 'Command Entourage' seem remarkably similar. I can see how the distinction could matter for a few armies but it still feels rather redundant with a few exceptions. I think that we are missing something as to why you would take one over the other, beyond the few list compositions that feature a number of heroes and monsters/artillery with no basic troops? Are shared drops a thing or is that now restricted to 'Battle Regiment'? As this could explain why someone would chose one over the other.

The funny thing is I run 20 with sword and board and 2 units of 5 with two hand weapons... so either way I will have some conversion work to do... which is not a specialty of mine. 😰

Yeah I run a unit of 20 with Sword and Shield... I guess I will have to create a new command and split off a portion of my unit 🤨

Well I am offering it to them with a specific but still very friendly catch, namely if they pick up any of the further starter sets to keep me in mind for splitting the other half... but considering that it will either net them a discount or some terrain (if it follows the 40k release model) then it still seems like a pretty good deal to me. 😳 However, the city I am in still has most lockdown restrictions in place, so I understand how it could feel a little burdensome to worry about starting a new collection/project. This of course has effected the employment of some of my friends as well. But still from my prospective I am trying to offer half an army that they can repay one day down the line if they were so inclined. I have also offered the Orcs to my cousin as trade bait to round out his soulblight army but he is refusing on principal as he is in a better financial situation than me but I keep explaining that I am going to try and nab the box either way.

I mean there was a decent amount self consolation in my post as I am not sure if I will get my hands on it 😉 I think both halves look fantastic but I am also leaning towards the Stormcast side as well. I have been working on various colour schemes for the army as well. It is weird though as I have asked my friend's group if they want the other half free of charge and no one has taken me up on the offer. I do not have the space or time to have a larger destruction army especially as I have a small Beast Claw army already. It is strange as I prefer them just slightly to the Stormcast half but I feel they will be slightly redundant next to my Chaos Warriors and Ogre Mawtribes. But if I do not get it I will likely settle on a Duradin or Aelven faction to provide some more variety for my hobby efforts. So as I said I am trying to brace myself for missing out by considering other potential options. 😅

I am in a similar boat in that I want to support a local game store, however as excited as I am for the box if I do not get it I will not be overly sad. I will only be collecting half either way and as much as I love the models there are other armies I love equally, so if I do not get my hands on it I will pick up something else and find peace with it... after maybe a week of bitterly complaining online.... 😏

As fun as it is to joke about his lack of armour, the reality is that saves in AOS pull double duty representing armour, toughness and in some senses martial prowess. So I personally have no issue with our giga chad taking a lance to the chest as giga chads often do! 😎

I have mentioned this in the Slaves to Darkness thread but I feel like they kind of released the first four of these articles to represent the most iconic or metonymic factions of each grand alliance. I think it makes sense as they are the armies I most directly think of in relationship to each alliance*: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/10/outlast-any-enemy-with-the-soulblight-gravelords-in-the-new-edition/ Fantastic looking shot of the army. *Note this does not make them my favourites since other than Slaves to Darkness I prefer several other factions for each Grand Alliance.

Is this the monster article we were waiting so patiently for? 🤣 https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/10/the-only-thing-scarier-than-dominions-killaboss-is-the-hungry-looking-mount-they-ride/

If I am reading this right I will have to convert my unit of 20 Chaos warriors with Sword and shield into 2 units of ten? Or a unit of 5 and one of 15? Because taking 20 would = 4 reinforcements which is more than they could take as a battle line unit 🤔🤯 Just when I thought I was done with the army... 😢

Yeah I was really hoping they were going to at least hint at or indicate new directions like an off handed reference to Furnace Kings (hinting at Chaos Dwarves) or the further rallying of Darkoath tribes (indicating new Marauders). But no, instead we got some pretty pictures and pretty much a retread over some previously previewed rules. Even in terms of retreaded rules they seemed largely arbitrary... But still first Chaos army featured was pretty nice, I also wonder if this indicates we will get priority in terms of army updates. We don't have the oldest army but we could really use an update... of course such an early release would mean drowning in the eventual flood of power creep... 😦 But considering that our Warscrolls are often designed to balance against Stormcast, I suppose being on the top towards the beginning will be better than being a book balanced against an early edition book which is how 2.0 felt to me.

Out of interest for our Kaiju loving expert what monsters are you hoping for? I feel like a lot of mythical/monstrous creatures are now iconically linked to specific subfactions like Hydras, Giants, Dinosaurs and Sea Monsters. I already posted about my embarrassing love of Unicorns, but I feel like a number of the fantasy monsters are currently tied to specific factions already. Dragons and their draconic kin are clearly at the top of most lists. I have a suspicion that the Chimera is moving away from Beasts of Chaos and more towards just a generic monster. I feel like non-chaotic versions of certain creatures would be awesome like the Sphiranx and Fomoroid. An AOS equivalent to Baba Yaga's house has been tossed around before and would be awesome. Fimir might work better in this role than as a standalone army or expansion to any destruction force. I do not think that a Sphinx is currently represented in AOS but I could be forgetting something. I could also see Rakshasa or Oni like creatures that could split the difference size wise between ogres and gargants. Various God Beasts would all be fairly cool although their potential scale might make this difficult.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lw4o3USx1R8sU7cQ.pdf The core rules for 40k are still available online. I think that AOS can expect the same, and they have shared a number of Warscrolls already. I think that GW is still banking on AOS being more accessible in hopes of winning over some 40k players while also functioning as a gateway for newer players.

Wanting to get back on to the topic of rumours. There is a type of creature that is not currently present in Warhammer and I deeply want to see represented as a neutral beast. Where are my Unicorns at? A rare magical creature that is not simply a horse with a horn, but a creature with the beard of a goat, body of a horse the tail of a lion and cloven hooves would look really cool. Although many medieval depictions made them smaller than horses I would love to see an elegant creature in the scale of a Mindstealer Sphrianx. It could be a fast creature that has magical abilities. But I think the most interesting thing about unicorn's is that they are often portrayed as divine creatures whose lives are sacred. I keep thinking how amazing it would be to have a mystical creature whose death could demoralize it's opponents. I think that maybe the army that slays the Unicorn will have a de-buff to it's bravery as the army questions their resolve. If an army somehow one the favour of a unicorn and saw it fall in battle maybe their resolve will double and they will get a buff to bravery. It would be a unique presence on the battlefield and it would become the centre of many memorable narratives. I think that it would be a weak unit in combat but with an amazing impact on the battlefield. Either way a dragon and a wild unicorn would both be instant purchases for me. But since I am likely to get a small Stormcast force thanks to dominion I will be able to run a Stardrake just leaving a unicorn shaped hole in my collection.

It is not only telling that people feel threatened by critique but also an indication of how structurally unstable hegemony can be. If exerting some critical pressure causes a narrative to unwind what does that say about the narrative, and more importantly about the narratives we tell ourselves? However, I do not consider all artwork to be aspirational and I think that art invites criticism. Warhammer is a highly polemical and parodic expression of fantasy and science fiction tropes. I have always loved the transgressive elements of Warhammer and it is why I have always been drawn to it. But polemical and parodic works are not above criticism and scrutiny and actually more readily invite such investigations of the work. The imperialist fantasy is something that exists within the narrative and player base, but so does it's opposition and unlike many other game systems Warhammer allows you to oppose the conventions that it's narrative sets up. So if someone wants to indulge some imperialistic fantasy of manifest destiny they are permitted, but know that there is a fun loving anarchist with 3d printed chaos warriors or lego built Orruks there to tear down the walls of order.

I think the thing that benefits Age of Sigmar's narrative over 40K is the ability to showcase multiple points of view. In establishing a stronghold in areas that belong to Chaos or Destruction we can see both sides of the narrative unfold rather than simply the perspective of Order. In this way we can have stories showcasing sympathetic people allying with Chaos to oppose a tyrant imposing Feudal law on the land, or a Destruction force taking down the army allowing the farmers to demand freedom from oppression. Again I am not sure what narrative dictums exist but I think that nuance can be accomplished much more readily by showcasing different points of view.

Here is the updated look at Slaves to Darkness in 3.0 obviously nothing earth shattering but it is nice to see this faction being placed alongside Stormcast and Orruk Warclans as the Iconic face of Chaos. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/09/the-slaves-to-darkness-are-out-to-conquer-the-new-edition-and-heres-how-theyll-do-it/ Also Warshrine #Bless