Saturmorn Carvilli

Do you mean players are just going to accept playing minimum board sizes? Because that isn't GW, that's the player base's doing in 40k.

I decided just to follow the thread stream here instead about halfway through. All killer of seeing the new models, no filler of commentary by GW employees.

Technically, I don't think it will be a limited run for the models. Just the Dominion box which is likely to be much, much cheaper than when the models are broken up later. Pretty much like Indomitus was. I do agree that if it sells out quick, GW allows for a made-to-order like they did for Indomitus.

My feeling as well. The models revealed are quite excellent. They just aren't my speed. Looking forward to other players getting them and seeing how they paint them and what kind of armies they put together. Just as well, I still have a lot of painting to get done on what I got still.

I honestly don't know how the Lumineth (I am talking about Wave 1 as I don't have any Wave 2 yet) could be sculpted to allow 'multi-posing' or cross-compatibility without sacrificing a lot of quality. Much of the range is wearing flowing robes, so there is much going on with torso and legs. That said, the whole model collection was designed to look like the wind is blowing upon them and lined up right all the clothes, capes, tassels, etc. are done so they look like they're being hit by the same breeze. As for older cross-compatible parts (I am mostly speaking of space marines as that is what I know of the old models), I suppose it was good for chapters with very different aesthetics (Dark Angels, Space Wolves, etc.), but much of the time to me, it was just surface gribblies that didn't matter much. I never felt my old CSM were all that unique because I could mix and match legs and chest plates. When the new CSM came out I quickly replaced them and gave my old models away to a new would be Black Legion (how they were painted) player. That said, I started GW games with 40k mid 7th edition (though played a couple demo games back in 5th). So, I have no attachment to old style. I do think I built enough older models to get the gist of how they work. I mostly find that is overstated how much newer GW models are monopose. Often to the point of being basically false. The newer stuff isn't plug-n-play easy as the older stuff, but I am pretty weak at kitbashing/conversions and I can manage it. What was loss is in no way worthwhile to me in what was gained (better anatomical structure, reduction in obvious gaps, holistically better looking models to name a few advantages). I never had much of a collection of old bits (which I could see be an issue with long time collectors). The only thing I think customers really loss is super easy variation of models. They're still plastic and there are more potential bits for kitbashing/conversions coming out nearly every year from GW alone. All of which is going to allow from truly unique models over AAA, AAB, ABB, ACB and so on parts matching. It just takes a little more work now. That's my current opinion on the matter.

As Clan's Cynic alluded to, I think it is important to remind everyone that it is very likely that GW customers/players largely don't buy models for their rules. I know as a fan forum community it can be sometimes be difficult to remember that by and large we are people that have been in this hobby for a while. I would guess any that have more than 100 posts have seen at least one edition change, and significant number have played GW games since before AoS was a thing. So we come from a very different angle than a number of GW customers. Be they new players, mostly painters or beer & pretzels/casual garagehammer players. I know most of my GW miniatures collection was bought purely because I like the models without concern about rules or the game in general. Most of the models I did purchase still weren't based on the specific rules at the time, rather; they were bought to fill slots or general roles I wanted for my army. For example: my S2D army I bought 2 old SC, box of Warriors and Knights initially. I already had the Warcry starter (for Kill Team terrain/just to paint) as well as a Daemon Prince from my Chaos Space Marine army. I knew I wanted big blocks Infantry and Cavalry as I believe in the trinity of rank and file (Infantry, Cavalry and Archers/Artillery). For my first couple of games, I literally was using the Warscrolls that came with the build instructions as the S2D Battletome hadn't been released and was delayed at my store. Even today, those models form the core of my army as that is what I want to play: a bunch of Chaos Warriors and Knights. The only model I added to the army was the Chaos Shrine as I was told it had good rules. However, it still had to be decent model to me (which it is). Because if I don't like the model, I am not getting it. That's why my mostly mortal S2D army has no Marauder models. Even if Marauders were the most broken, OP unit in all of AoS, I am not getting them. I don't like the look of them, and it is not a direction I am really interested in taking my army (though Warcry cultist models are the cat's pajamas). I am sure the GW game designers try to get the balance right with the time and resources they have. I suspect they don't have enough of either since games/models sell regardless. At the same time, I think the boost in sales over the last 3-4 years (basically starting with 8th ed 40k) has convinced GW somewhat that better balance/tighter rules sell better. Certainly, the rules are ways from good in terms of balance, but I think they are better than they have been (major hick-ups aside [cough] Codex: Space Marines 2019). Honestly, I don't think the rules are ever going to be well-balanced (GW fiddles/changes with things way too much), but that's not the main reason I play their games anyways.

It might be the selection of factions I picked, but I'm not really seeing the multiple ways to build older models compared to newer ones. Sure, the older models have a bit more, but nothing super impressive to me. My older models are Chaos Warriors and Knights mostly. For the Warriors the bodies are all the same pose which makes sense they are meant for rank and file. And the arm options attach at the elbow with the upper arms being at the side of the body. There's some rotation that can be done with the weapons and shields (if you go with that option). Nothing to write home about as far as I'm concerned. I even clipped the left-handed weapons to vary types as well as used some Knights ensorcelled weapons, but in a unit of 15 there's still likely a lot of repeats. Just less than a hypothetical new kit (not counting mixing in the new Easy-to-Build Start Collecting ones). Again maybe its just me, but once a group of 10-15 models form a unit, the details of each model just kinda blend together anyways. The Chaos Knights offer some weapon angle positioning, but again nothing I would really point out as a feature compared to the newer models. Once you go beyond a few enorcelled weapons or glaives you're going to have repeats. In comparison, my new army is Lumineth. For the most part, I would think one wants the Wardens (spearmen) and Sentinels (archers) for this kind of army to look the same as well-disciplined soldiers drilled for several decades. My Stonegaurd have weapon options (hammer or pick) in the kit. The Stoneguard offer little posing flexibility without some conversion talent. Most of that is largely due to the capes though as changing the arm positions too much creates contra visuals to how the model's cape is moving. I will say, as much as a pain to build, the Dawn Riders to offer some angling of their spears/lances. If I can ever bring myself to get more, I plan to fill in the angle gaps to making it appear that 10 Dawn Riders are lowering their weapons in a wave. I also have a bunch of Warcry cultists for my S2D army. Most kits offer a couple of options. The spindly nature of those models and being the chaff-est of chaff units for my army, I didn't bother getting creative in posing with them unless it was really easy. So there is some difference between old and new, however; good portion of the models I have the difference isn't worth bringing up and/or the older models are so removed from human anatomy that 360 degree rotation parallel with the spine isn't going to look out of place. With a lot of the newer models, I could change some posing, but many times that could conflict with other details on the model in terms of motion, lines or other posing cues. I am much more familiar with 40k models many of which get called monopose. Most of which I think is without merit. Because Genestealer Cult Abberants are what I call monopose while many call Primaris (sans Easy-to-Build) space marines monopose. I haven't really encountered a non-ETB Primaris space marine that can't be built with some easy different posing (a lot can be hidden under a pauldron). Even some ETB ones can be easily clipped to gain more range of motion. The same can be said with the new Chaos Space Marines. I have incorporated more than a few bits from my old CSM model kits as well as new Havoc weapons and a smattering of Chaos Terminator bits into my refreshed Chaos Space Marines. I was particularly happy that none of my 3 Heavy Bolter marines have Hvy Bolters that look like the others. And I don't really like building models which in turn means I really don't favor conversions/kitbashing much. I mean I do it on occasion, but it is very minor and easy beginner stuff. I certainly won't say that the new stuff is plug and play easy to convert or pose, but I will say the new models can often get more mileage than is often made out. Just like I do think that older models don't have as much posing as they are often touted to.

I generally like AoS's rules. Speaking purely about core rules, I appreciate that AoS is a sightless needlessly complicated than 40k. I like the far fewer Command Points as well as a whole host of fewer things to spend them on. I hope that never changes as I feel 40k stratagems are deep into what was D&D 3rd ed's Feat system that was crazy bloated with tons of fat feats that were highly situational at best, beginner's traps at worst. I even like the static to Hit and to Wound mechanics as I play a lot of new/take long breaks players where it can be a minute for them to tell me what the Toughness is. With AoS, its roll the dice pool, take out dice, roll the dice pool, tell the opponent the number of wounds with ___ Rend. Fast and easy. I am not much of a fan of Shooting mechanics conceptionally. They feel really odd to me especially given the fantasy genre. Maybe it is my bias from 40k, other tabletop war games and even D&D, but Shooting in close combat and sniping heroes doesn't match with my idea of a (I see many models as representing dozens if not hundreds of that unit) of a massive fantasy battle. Which it probably totally on me. At the same time, many of the Shooting mechanics seem out of place for a small one-for-one skirmish too. I like the idea of the double-turn. I certainly will admit it doesn't work as well in an IGOUGO system like AoS. While I am pro-40k moving away from IGOUGO as I think more modern combat is more fluid, I currently want AoS to keep its turn system as I envision fantasy armies taking some time and effort to change direction once in battle. However, at the moment there usually isn't any sort of decision point to be made concerning the double-turn. Given that I believe a game is a series of interesting decision points, that's a shame. So I do hope the game designers can develop something that doesn't make the double-turn and auto-take. Concerning Battletomes, I am honestly surprised the AoS works as well as it does. Most games I have seen/played feel like two people blasting energy beams at each other and if either fail to keep the force of their beam or even the angle correct instant vaporization. Which I don't think the game gets as much credit as it does for that. Many AoS armies wield immense power compared to many other games I have played yet games often take longer than I would expect to reach the tipping point (that point where it becomes pretty clear who is going to win). As a more (oxymoron incoming) serious casual player I find that incredible as my gaming group tends to sit around 75% or so of highly optimized. So even the weakest army can optimize more and still compete. But I can see how that could be an issue in groups at above 95% optimized play. There are certainly weaker and stronger external and internal Battletome armies. At the same time, I have to ask how much is [s]amphibious[/s] Runic Shields worth? Amphibious being from a WWII type game I played where some vehicles could spend points for it. Crazy good for some tables, useless most the time. Same idea for Runic Shield's +5 save vs. Mortal Wounds when facing an army that doesn't throw many out, but great against the ones that do (particularly if you have some sort of mutant power I like do making way more than you should). Not to say there aren't haves and haves nots. I get rekt'ed when playing Bonereapers as more often than not they are playing the same attrition army I am but better. I mention Runic Shields because vs. OBR (least the ones I played) it is worthless making my Chaos Warriors/Knights less efficient to their elite skeleton counterparts. But I don't to the point there is such a difference in damage output as (at least Warriors to Mortek Guard) are quite similar.

@Sleboda I am pretty sure you can't copyright game mechanics. In the case of Magic: the Gathering, WotC patented Tapping Cards. Which I believe the patent ran out a few years ago. Even then, it didn't stop other card games from have mechanics that allowed a player to turn a card sideways. Those games just didn't call it tapping (they called it just about everything else). Additionally, no one can copy word for word how game mechanics function (as it is plagiarism), and I believe is covered by copyright. Which perhaps these day/night mechanics were directly copied from Fury of Dracula. If it were the case, I would think it would have been discussed somewhere by now. I would think if game mechanics were the thing that got Cursed City in hot water, someone would have been able to tie what game mechanics are the issue. Or maybe there is far less cross-over between GW players and board gamers in general than I think there are.

I am certainly bias, but I feel that Lumineth aren't as powerful as they are made out to be (any overall tournament results have them in the middle of the field the few times I have bothered to see the results). At the same time, I do recognize that an issue with the Lumineth is they seem to be an army the opponent almost needs to know as well as the LRL player or they may find themselves caught in something that is tough to get out of. Of course in addition to being a LRL player, my other army is a Warrior/Knight heavy S2D army which really isn't overly bothered by the issues brought about LRL. So I certainly have a difficult time seeing any issue (not to say there isn't, just my limited experience may be too bias to know). As for Dominion selling out very quickly (à la Indomitus). I think it is certainly possible. Right now, I don't really have much interest in the box as I am lukewarm to adding to my SCE from the previous box set (which I haven't even built yet) as I really don't have space for another army. And the other faction is far too much in limbo yet. However, I do like gobliniods riding wolves, so I can't rule it out completely. Just the same, I won't be as bummed out as much as I was when I didn't get a copy of Indomitus despite favoring AoS more. For the quality of rules writing, I really do think that GW has stepped up their game as demonstrated in the 40k 9th edition codices. To be sure, they ain't perfect. But they are a heck of a lot better any edition I have seen (which to be fair isn't really that many). I also lean away from the idea that 40k is going through a powercreep as I don't think it is as much powercreep as it is victory conditions (and the fundamental ways armies score those points) have changed a lot from 8th leading to factions that don't have strong playstyles to work under those conditions suffering until they get their 9th ed. codex. I have a strong suspicion that AoS 3rd ed is going to play a lot closer to 40k 9th ed than it currently does. No real evidence of this, just a hunch. I wouldn't all that surprised if AoS had Battleplans that played much like 9th ed 40k missions. Though, I would miss some kookier Battleplans have from recent years. I will admit that I am less concerned about the external/internal balance of Battletomes. I came into play GW games knowing full well what to expect in terms of balance. So I don't need good balance, just better balance. Which I think the game designers at GW are accomplishing at the moment. There will be slip ups. But so long as things are improving, and my gaming group can find a general equilibrium of power we all build around it should be fine.

This was brought up by Mcthew in the Cursed City thread. As suggested, I am curious about how people feel about Age of Sigmar 3rd Edition. Me, I'm a bit torn. I came into AoS about halfway through 2nd (just before the S2D Battletome). It was a very rough start for me, but AoS is just edging out 40k now for me even as I am more of a fan of Sci-Fi (or whatever 40k is) than fantasy. In addition, with the pandemic I pretty much loss a year of gaming. I am just now starting to get games in. So in many ways, I feel that Age of Sigmar could have waited another year before dropping a new edition on us. Which would also help on GW getting their stock to better than constantly depleted levels as well. At the same time, even with limited experience with the game I have seen (more been shown) that rules have some issues. I like the double turn as an idea to keep the game unpredictable. I also know being the victim of the double turn isn't necessarily an auto-loss either. The game I played had me suffer through a double turn (vs. DoT no less), and I still managed to squeak out a win with my Warriors/Knights heavy S2D. In fact, all game long I felt as I was getting the short end of the stick when it came to initiative. However, I also know that not many factions have the depth of unit options Slaves to Darkness to have options to provide resistance to suffering a double turn. Nor do I like that there is rare a decision point on whether to take or not take the double turn when it is presented. All of which makes it easy to see why this mechanic is the most polarizing of AoS. It is things like the double turn, shooting even Lookout, Sir! that could all use some tightening up (though I suspect with GW it will be more of shuffling deck chairs) along with a host of other rules interacts that have been exposed in 2nd edition's life cycle. There is certainly an argument that these issue could be addressed without a whole new edition. I supose it depends on how much alterations GW feels the game should have. Ultimately, I am curious and cautiously optimistic on AoS 3rd edition. I don't really think it was necessary this year and probably would have preferred it coming out next year, but that may be my late introduction to the game.

I don't know what the issue is with people saying AoS is getting too many Mortal Wounds attacks. I just played my first game of AoS is nearly a year of S2D (me) vs. DoT. I must have been hit by at least 30 MWs all game long and saved like 20-24 of them mostly with Runic Shield type saves some by +5/+6 wound didn't happen. Everyone has got to get themselves some Runic Shields. They're terrific. On the other hand, Rend -1 is way too powerful. I feel like I made less than 10% of those in yesterday's game. I didn't make a single save on my Chaos Shrine (I don't know who says it's a good unit, mine didn't do anything) and lost turn one to Pink Horror shooting. Those regular 5+ Saves are near impossible to make.

You do

I did because I knew it was possible that indeed GW did say such statement with their social media accounts as they have said things that turned out to be not true before. That said, I have seen there are far more voices out there that simply have an axe to grind with GW and will take every opportunity to attack. I felt that I was simply debating on the side of that most box sets and specialist games tend to have a short shelf life (though not Cursed City short). My experience concerning someone saying GW stated something to be true, but they can never find that statement is still like 9:1. Well, maybe less with the new Space Marine Combat Patrol which they say can make Incursors but show the easy-to-build Infiltrators (which can't). I simply hadn't seen the evidence of GW's statements until this thread provided (as I wasn't going to searching for something I wasn't even sure existed myself). It didn't get antagonistic until I was insulted by Clan's Cynic. And certainly wasn't trolling. Cursed City has become a curious case. I think in light the new evidence, I will still lean toward it being a one and done product, though there still are irregularities with that, and the social media team having the wrong information. That doesn't cover everything nicely so there very well may be other factors involved. We probably won't be privy to that information to form a more concrete understanding of what happened thought.

I hadn't seen that evidence. Thank you.

But Silver Tower wasn't permanent as it is not available for sale currently, is it? Not sure when the Necromunda starter was released nor if it is still available. If it is, do we know if it had a second run to maintain stock? That's part of what I am getting at. GW tends to make a single run and when it is gone that's it. The big difference these days is that they don't have many days to purchase as they used to. Super frustrating and I don't like it. But hard to fault GW as it's tough to gauge interest.

Were those other Warhammer Quests around due to multiple printings or slower sales? I think that is an important detail. I have my doubts of about these official statements by GW if for no other reason my experience has been people get it in their head some GW product is going to be a certain way with absolutely no evidence of such a thing. Then they get all mad that their mental fabrication didn't happen. As I said, I didn't see all the news concerning Cursed City so it may have happened. However, the internet's tract record has me not believing it until I get a screenshot of it prior to being 'scrubbed.' Especial since my experience with literally every GW boxed set and specialist game has been a single printing that when it is gone it's gone. The big difference being Cursed City went gone much faster than the others. P.S. Calling me Kirby (as in Tom Kirby) is akin to calling me a GW white knight and is quite rude and is uncalled for. I am already taking the unpopular position in this argument. I don't need to be insulted. Please don't do it again.

I am more confused by the fan/ex-fan response more than anything. I didn't follow the new for Cursed City all that close, but I don't remember anywhere GW saying it was going to be a perennial product. Quite the opposite in that I figured once it sold out that it would it just like literally dozens of other box sets and specialist game sets. I also figured that due to the pandemic they might be less copies and/or demand would be way up compared to say when Blackstone Fortress came out. Which meant a very limited time window. Appears that is about what happened. Although, after the bit pass the pre-oder phase, there did seem to be a period that if you really wanted a copy you could find a store that had a bunch of copies available. I don't know if that was true or not, but the places I visit on the interest seemed to be pretty good at sniffing out places that still had copies and making others aware of it. What really confuses me is this insistence that GW should have said something. Outside a rush to get a copy and the game selling out incredibly fast, it seemed like a pretty normal GW release. As in GW hypes the gak out of it up to pre-order day then never speaks of it save maybe some painting tutorials. Pretty standard operating procedure of GW. Especially when they appeared to have sold their entire stock of Cursed City. Not much of a point trying to sell it more as there isn't more to sell. So typical GW they move onto the next big release and begin/continue to hype that where the cycle starts anew. I sort of get it. People weren't informed it was a one and done. Which honestly, how often does GW state that without being prodded. Also how much finger pointed of FOMO would happen? I don't remember the Kill Team starter being sold as a one run product back in 2018. Which it certainly as the Kill Team starter was basically gone by November (it was released in August) or sooner in a lot of places. It never came back and was replaced by a lesser, more expensive one later (which was also a one and done). I know it is a bit frustrating that GW releases have basically been selling out the week (sometimes the day or even the minute) that pre-ordering is possible. I haven't been able to get a hold any preorder through my FLGS since the Wave 1 Lumineth release, and honestly I was concerned then as my area has a huge number of would be Lumineth players. At the same time, I don't think GW owes any of us answers. In many ways, GW wants this kind of situation: they sold their entire stock. Which is what their advertising/hype and what they are in the business to do. Certainly, they are probably kicking themselves for not producing more and leaving money on the table. However, I can't imagine it is easy to gauge interest who knows how many months/years with the project was started. It's not like GW knew the interest in their product would exceed their (often more limited ) production capability like it has for basically the past year. Ultimately, outside some odd occurrences that GW certainly don't owe anyone outside the company any explanation, Cursed City has been an accelerated, but largely typical GW specialist game release.

Whose hiding anything? Outside of Indomitus which appeared to genuinely catch GW off guard, has GW said anything concerning how well a release sold to the public ever? Cursed City is no different than when Abbadon the Despoiler released and GW made no mention it until best models of 2019. Games Workshop didn't say anything either time. It's fans/ex-fans still keeping a tab on things that expecting something when there really isn't a reason to. Feels tilting at windmills to me. Yeah, It isn't fun (and doesn't feel fair) that a product wasn't made as widely available so every customer could get it if they wanted. My FLGS hasn't been able any new GW product I have wanted for over half-a-year. Sure, most of it wasn't limited save Pariah Nexus. Doesn't mean I'm not a little frustrated that I still haven't had access to Wave 2 Lumineth unless I go somewhere else that doesn't support where I play. No, I am a little frustrated. At the same time, these aren't normal times (pandemic/sudden interest in GW products/paper/cardboard shortages/GW outsources paper products) so it isn't like we don't have any clues what caused Cursed City's fate. I certainly don't believe GW owes us any kind of explanation any more than they owe use one on how well the Heavy Intercessors pre-sale are next week. I simply don't believe fans, ex-fans and/or customers are entitled to that information as a mater of fact.

What's there for Games Workshop to say about Cursed City that is going to help this sell these new releases? Do you want them say something FOMO like, "Check out these models previously from one of our fastest selling box sets: Cursed City. Which sold out almost immediately. Be sure to pre-order yours May 22 early." Games Workshop is in the business of selling models. On their end from a certain point of view, Cursed City was a huge success selling out so fast. I can't really see a scenario where bringing that up selling the same models but asking for more money assists in the selling of said models that isn't going to result in even more sore feelings from fans/ex-fans still paying attention to GW over not saying anything at all.

Ya know you could just play Lumineth if you wanted that. Granted there aren't that many shoe-less models in the line, but it isn't zero either.

Yeah, I didn't like the fact that to play Lumineth Realm Lords, Games Workshop forced me to sign a contract stating I have to at least some elemental temple aspect stuff in every army I field. Me, I chose Alarith as I actually do like them so it is not that much of a bother most of the time. I am certain the Lumineth would be more popular if armies could be entirely composed of the more mundane high elf stuff, but that contract a player has to sign with GW to even buy the Lumineth models is binding. Hopefully, in time, Games Workshop lets Lumineth players just buy and play the models they like instead of threatening legal action for not including the weirder stuff. One can dream...

I have to disagree. That's what those chaff are there to do. They ARE the bodyguard unit in the event that AoS adopts 40k's Lookout, Sir! rules. Which I really don't see as that big of a problem. Hero units are like that are supposed to buff a unit. My limited experience has been its only one unit as well since lots of buffs in AoS are wholly within 12" or so (which is usually that chaff unit forming a very symbiotic relationship). Which very much forces the hero to be in certain places to worthwhile. Which is something an opponent can predict, and if they can predict it, they can form plans to counter it. On the countering side, I am not super familiar with every faction, but are there lots of factions that don't have fast, flying or teleporting units that can in some way flank and absolutely have to rely on withering ranged attacks to bring down these heroes? I have only played my Slaves to Darkness army. It has practically no ranged attacks (Warcry cultists ranged attacks and Arcane Bolt basically). A very unreliable teleport (I have only successfully cast it once), as well as; not especially good speed or damage (lots of Warriors and Knights). That said, I have still managed a surprising number of hero kills (mostly with my heroes for that sweet, sweet Eye of the Gods roll). I mean it could be my opponent's positioning, but 6'x4' is a lot of area and chances are there are going to be gaps in the line for fast movers to get in a flank attack to catch these heroes. I am not seeing that big of an issue with heroes have 40k levels of protection. Worse comes to worse, make heroes like 20%+ more expensive across the board or something. I think that's a far better fix than creating basically a whole new class of units (bodyguards) to patch the issue. My Slaves to Darkness army hasn't been affected by ranged attack sniping of my heroes (at least not yet). Even with me running a bunch of foot Lords (both warrior and wizard types) it usually easy enough keep them safe Round 1 and after that ensure they can some protective magics (Oracular Visions works great). I just find it kinda distasteful how easy it can be to remove one of the few things that flavor an army.

I don't think I would go that far. I think bodyguard special abilities would still have a place and provide options on how to use heroes. Though, I won't argue these changes may make bodyguard units less attractive to take overall. Maybe it's because I see AoS as being a melee focused game, but it isn't like being able to pass wounds isn't still useful to keep your heroes going far longer than they should. I mean one of the most powerful (and overlooked) abilities the Genestealer Cults have is Unquestioning Loyalty which can nearly preserve a character model all game long as a player feed chaff to take the damage. Usually, in melee has been my experience. I wouldn't be surprised if AoS 3rd edition goes toward 9th edition 40k style game missions/battleplans. Basically revolves around objective play a whole lot more. Again, I see AoS being even more melee focused than 40k which currently is more melee focused than it's been in years (part of the reason the Tau are struggling is due to this). I could see, Lookout, Sir! going to how it works in 40k (which I do like) with the expectation that heroes are more likely be in the fray. Which keeps bodyguard units in business. I honestly don't like the current, Lookout, Sir! rules in AoS. To the point I prefer no using ranged attacks to target heroes even if it might be the best option. To me, if kinda feels cheap to delete a 4-5 foot hero (which I will admit isn't automatic and sometimes can over use resources). Mostly because the games I have played hero units are the part of the army that makes them unique. Perhaps my area leans heavy on Battleline units, but many of our armies are kinda spam-y beyond the choice of heroes we take. I want to these heroes do what they do to make their armies a little more unique rather than snipe the hero and my opponent have a little more bland game from there.

Maybe I'm so far away for the target audience that I can't see it, but I can't see Fimir being popular no matter the way they are introduced. I personally think generic 'GA: Destruction' humans that are basically not-Chaos Marauders would do several times better than Fimir. I feel same about not-beastmen/centaurs being added to Destruction of Fimir. I just don't see much that is compelling (I could be very bias though) in Fimir design. I mean maybe a single unit as part of a hodgepodge Destruction faction sure (like Kroot with Tau in 40k or something), but certainly not a stand-alone faction. The Fimir seem like something just too dated to revive. However, I know how much GW loves to recycle ideas, and maybe they can make it work in some fashion. Like I said, maybe I am that far away from the target audience that I am not even worth pursing. It just seems to me that GW could easily put out something else that would be far, far more popular. I mean somehow connect dark elves (or whatever their AoS equivalent) to Destruction. I think that would do several times better in terms of sales. Sometimes, I kinda want the Grand Alliances to go away. I think we are past needing them as a crutch to support some factions, and the idea itself is become a noose more and more.