Saturmorn Carvilli

It is possible GW could fix the army depth issue by adding more models to the factions with less depth. I don't see that happening anytime soon, but it is fixable in a way that interests (adding more models) GW. Given the idea that isn't likely to happen, I empathize with the 'feels bad' of getting rolled by double turn with little to minimize it. That said, it isn't like double turns are automatic. We tend to act like every game has two double turns (which I know does happen). I mention this as I think it is important keep in mind how often this disruption/chaos mechanic occurs. Which I think is one of the two aspects that make double turns so despised. The other being how much effect a single die roll has on the rest of a game. I can very easily see how both the frequency and effect of double turns puts some players off. I would agree that I think the frequency and effect probably are too intensive. When a player is given the option for a double turn, there currently is very few downsides as it is a very powerful mechanic. Well worth designing ones army to capitalize on getting one. Which of course, often compounds a sort of 'do or die' games trying for a double turn happening or not happening basically being the win/lose conditions. I hope with AoS 3rd, that the game designers also see these issues. Which I am sure they do as they really are more clever than we often give them credit. Perhaps they have figured out ways to lessen the impact of double turns while keeping the mechanic as a powerful disruption/chaos/fog of war mechanic which I do think AoS needs to keep games interesting. Certainly, whatever has been designed won't appeal to everyone, and many that are con-double turn won't see it as being enough. Everyone has their own tastes and preferences. I just hope that the effect of the double turn is dialed back a little. Optimally, AoS 3rd edition has mechanics that even move away from putting so much effort in getting a double turn or always auto-choosing to take the double turn when it is presented. That's quite a rules design challenge that I am glad I don't have to try and solve. As I have said, I kinda like the double turn. I think is core AoS mechanic worth keeping. I do think it has too much of an effect on games as is. I am hopeful that the game designers can come up mechanics to reduce that though. Maybe not to everyone's liking but maybe where it garners the largest population of players that can be at least okay with its existence. P.S. Sorry for the essays, I have been under the weather and kinda need low risk mental projects to wipe away this brain fog I have had for more than a week. So these writing are kinda more clearing the cobwebs from my brain more than anything else. If you read this far, well... sorry and thank you.

A quick guide to things one has to come to peace with Games Workshop. Prices are always going to go up The games are never going to that balanced based simply on points Some factions are going to be crazy powerful some factions are going to be crazy weak New editions are going to happen about every 3 years Stormcast and Space Marines are the introductory factions and GW is very interested in always getting new players. So they are always going to have a place in starters and likely will always consistently get new stuff over everyone else. These might as well be facts of life. To get annoyed at them is as about useful as getting annoyed it gets dark and night or teenagers are doing something stupid. They are basically immutable at this point. In particular about the Stormcast/Space Marine thing. I suspect now that each range is pretty well fleshed out, neither are going to see huge expansion beyond new editions in which the will likely always be included again to get new players which I am sure GW believe are the lifeblood of their industry. To sure, there will always be factions that won't really see new models for decades. I look at this way, if you always want new stuff for your army, you know which factions always get new models.

I have always been pretty neutral concerning the double turn. Leaning more toward favoring its existence than not. The limited number of games I have played of AoS with my army hasn't seen the double turn hasn't ever completely shut down my ability to win or not. At least not as much as my opponent's list and skill did. However, I play a faction with very good depth of unit options which allow me to build an army that is less effected by a potential double turn. I have certainly played opponents that had armies that lived and died on the double turn. I also can't say they had the unit option depth to mitigate it like my army can. Which I think is where I am at with the double turn. I want it to stay as I like the unpredictably it creates in games. I am also the kinda of player that not only doesn't mind, but kinda likes the idea that sometimes a bad player with a bad list can still just win a game via dumb luck. Though, most games are won by the player with the better list and understanding of the game. Which I think AoS does a good job. It sounds like AoS 3rd ed is going to try and offer or least help out where double turns can become overwhelming. Which I hope works out. While I am fine with a game going off the rails with a single dice roll, I have seen it time and time again in my opponent's face when their success it tuned to a double turn happening and does which basically signals the end of the game. Outside some of the more micro-managing of close melee positioning, I really like the simplicity of AoS. I hope the game remains much easier to play that the somewhat complicated mess that 40k is becoming. That simplicity did often mean that AoS could be very predictable as players have near perfect control of their armies. I know without unpredictablilty of thing like the double turn. I can accurately know what turn my units are getting into combat, how many models with get to attack and basically how many wounds (typically +/- 1 wound) I would be inflicted to the enemy unit. Along with how many losses I would take any given turn. The dice pools are big enough with ways to make reliable rolls that rarely spike. I also think there is something to be said with the double turn either accelerating a losing game or occasionally reviving one that was otherwise known. Both are worthwhile outcomes to me. If the game is a loss, I have no issue with double turns speeding the process along. There just might be enough time to get in another game then. And on the other hand, I like the idea of my opponent being able to get back into the fight after an opportune double turn. However, I am less interested in wining and losing over a memorial game. I will never be convinced that GW games are meant for serious tests of competition. I think any attempt to try is always going to be met with frustration. I also don't believe that 2000 pts vs. 2000 pts is ever going to be anywhere close to balanced gaming experience without additional framework. No matter how we all pretend that is the case when we all know it's not. Right now even with the double turn, the better player and list tend to win more often. They probably don't win all the time, but I like that. I really do think everyone deserves to win a game despite themselves. Just as long as wining and losing games isn't completely arbitrary. Which even now in AoS 2ed is the case. The better player is more likely to win, but they might not win every game. Which I think is a good thing. My army and my skill have a definite ceiling. If I was playing regularly I know that my army would lose more often than it wins. The army just has fatal flaws that I don't have the skill to overcome. I win with my army because it is easy to use and very predictable in what it can do. So often I win simply because I can plan my strategy better than my opponent. Especially if my opponent is still trying to figure out how to best use their army. Once an opponent does know how to use their army, though; I basically can't win games due to the inherent ceiling of my army. I like the double turn existence for the simple fact that when facing a seasoned AoS that knows their army (and is typically a little better than my own) there is just enough unpredictably from the double turn's existence that neither of can completely know the outcome of the game. Again, I really like that. I understand it moves games into being more luck based that many players are comfortable with. I do think their are some very limited thing that can be done to reduce (or make worst) the double turn effect. Again, I hope AoS 3rd finds ways to soften the blow of a double turn as it can be a game changer off a single die roll. But I do want that little nugget of chaos to remain in the game which otherwise gives players a lot of near perfect control and power over their armies.

I know most Chaos god specific players tend to either overlook or don't want to play what is considered Slaves to Darkness units, but what about Chaos Warriors with Runic Shields? A big part of the reason I am not overly concerned about Lumineth is that most of the tricks light aelves pull my Chaos Undivided Slaves to Darkness army has an answer to. While Khorne can't have the nice Battleshock immunity, I think I would also find it difficult for the Lumineth to chew through 15 Chaos Warriors x3 over the course of the game (at least at range). I can't remember if non-S2D get the re-roll saves, but they certainly would get the +5 Save vs. Mortal Wounds. Which I have to assume works as good vs. LRL as it does DoT. I would think that should largely protect from painful Battleshock loses unless the LRL player really commits to hurting a unit of Warriors and gets extraordinarily lucky. I mean my Chaos Undivided S2D army certainly isn't on the level of OBR in terms of attrition play, but I think against something like LRL, the army might have better protections than the boneboyz. Teclis, Cathallar, Sentinels, Wardens and Endless Spells can't be projecting that much physical board coverage, and in many ways; is just as slow as Chaos Warriors. I would think as long as you can secure the objectives, that LRL army could pound on your army all game but not take away much ground you've secured. I can also understand that not being exactly a fun way to win games, but I found by playing my Warrior/Knight, Chaos Undivided, Ravagers S2D army that's what I already had to do if I wanted to win games regardless of the opposing army.

I'm not sure who is spookier in that game trailer between the Stormcast and the Nighthaunts. I'm leaning toward the SCE. Those shadow eyes are so creepy.

As I mentioned in the OP, I don't have much to add to this discussion despite starting the thread. I haven't had the opportunity to play my Lumineth yet. Honestly, I haven't even really thought all that much about them as I think its still a while off before I can field them. It's that reason I haven't really done a whole painting on them either. Well that, and I have a bunch of older armies I've trying to get caught up too. I'm stepping in concerning the meta of the discussion. For the most part, I think the thread has been fairly civil. I have read each post and gave each all the consideration I think they deserve. As a fan and player of the Lumineth, I am very interested in what others have to say. Particularly, those that aren't fans of the Lumineth rules. I believe a person doesn't learn or grow only speaking with others that agree with them, or at very least, those that disagree and hold their tongue. I want to read about the concerns (I'd take it as a kindness if they were delivered in a friendly, polite and honest way) others may have. I am under no obligation to agree with them. Just like they are not any obligation to conform to my thoughts on the subject. It's fine to disagree. I also welcome supporters of the Lumineth rules to also speak their view in a friendly, polite and honest manner. We all know it's early days for the Lumineth. A faction that has grown quite fast and in an environment where few games actually get played. Add to that, the faction is evidently the 'spiritual successor' to a polarizing faction from all the way back of the WHFB days. A faction that the game designers appear to want to take in a different direction as to what has be considered to succeed at winning games. A faction with a 'hole heapin' helpin' of rules many of which really haven't explored (to my knowledge anyways). Me, I like the idea of the Lumineth have piles of rules as a flavor win. The Lumineth are often described as doing things in an overly complicated manner often in an attempt to seem intellectually superior. I personally like to think of this as a sort of Rube Goldberg thinking that while it works has a number of extraneous things not really adding much. I can definitely see how that can be concerning. The Lumineth oddly could involve both players having a steep learning curve when in comes to playing or playing against the Lumineth. All these piles of rules acting like a vast unlabeled control panel several buttons, dials and switches where it will be difficult to know exactly which to activate (or deactivate them on the opponent's end). However, could be very rewarding once a Lumineth player gets the hang of, and likely equally rewarding when an opponent of a Lumineth army learns the counters. It could be a struggle in the learning process which I suppose could be considered a NPE. I am still planning on sticking with a Ymetrica Alarith type army. I just think those models are neat. As 40k Primaris space marine player, I do not want a repeat of practically every part of the Internet feeling like, "Oh, you're one THOSE players", which often can bleed over in real space leading to some cold introductions between me and players I haven't met before. I field armies I like the look of more than what happens to be the best or best combination. To be sure, I don't throw a random bunch of units together and ensure my army covers the elements I think they game wants where I can. Although, I'm going to take the model I like more for that role over the one that is better for that role. I just want a fun game for me and my opponent. While the objective the game is to win, the point is to have fun. I can have fun losing just as easily as I can have misery winning. TL;DR: I think this thread has been quite informative. I also think it is good to have a single place where those that want to discuss Lumineth rules good or bad can openly. Rather than all over the place in threads they really don't have any business being in. I fully understood starting this thread in a more general area over the Lumineth specific was likely to see more criticism. I think that's good. While I have no interest in spending my free time in a hate cell, I also don't fancy spending that much in an echo chamber either. Be polite and honest, please. And because this AoS and not 40k, try to keep an open mind (despite it being "like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.")

You want to talk LRL rules? I made a thread for it.

I don't really have anything myself to discuss the subject (though I am interested in the discussion as a LRL player), but I grew tired of the constant interruptions in the Rumor thread. Especially since the Rumor thread is the defacto only thread worth posting here in apparently. So to try to stem some of the one thread gets all 100s of pages of discussion and the rest get 2 or 3 pages this thread now exists. At very least it gives the Mods a place to direct those wanted to talk about this particular subject and not clutter up the Rumor thread more than it already is. And yes, I know it probably should be in the Lumineth Realm Lords sub-forum, but this thread is aimed for non-fans and detractors to air their thoughts of the LRL rules (not the models themselves unless it concerns the rules) who do want to discuss the rules (particularly the latest rules) and aren't the sort to seek out the smaller sub-forums. As well as those who wish to make counterarguments to said thoughts.

I can't comment too much on Planescape. The little I played (never got around to the Torment video game) was focused too much on Sigil by the DM who also seemed to be goading us players in annoying the Lady of Pain's influence. So he could show us how super overpowered she was and, 'rocks fall, everyone's dead'. I would also state that D&D cosmology was pretty established before Planescape was a thing. What Planescape did was largely solidified, categorized and codified (read: gave them concrete descriptors and rules). Which honestly as both a D&D player and Dungeun Master spoiled much of the mystery and wonder of planar travel in D&D. I still remember the first few times I read the description of Astral Projection, Plane Shift or the brief descriptions of the planes (in the DMG? I believe) way back in 1989 as a kid that hadn't really encountered mysticism/New Age type stuff before. It was the final frontier in D&D. I imagined powerful wizards and clerics traveling the planes like fantastical astronauts in a space beyond space with monsters and creatures beyond comprehension that dwelled there (very Lovecraftian like for someone that hadn't read Lovecraft yet). However, when Planecape arrived, so too did the mapping of the planes. It wasn't a blank space that said, "Thar Be Dragons Here" except maybe on the distant margins. It also wasn't a place forbidden to non-double digit leveled characters. For me, the introduction Planescape left me largely disinterested in planar exploration in D&D as your party weren't going to be the first explorers of that frontier any longer. Or least, not without that one player that bellyaches that's not how it is in the books. And for a person like me who has traveled and explored the worlds of fantasy going on 30 years I gladly welcome departure from vanilla, generic fantasy. Becuase fantasy should not be generic. And again, each setting's world is unique just like every city is unique. Maybe it is a commentary on myself who doesn't have interest in really digging deep into many settings anymore, but just like traveling to various major cities and only spending a few days there at a time they all kinda blend together beyond a few of the more noticeable differences as a traveler largely does the same things they did in the last city and will do in the next one. Just like many adventures are going to be kinda the same no matter the setting. It takes something really different (like traveling to Asia) where the architecture, culture and food are far more different (compared to the West particularly the United States) to really stand out. Even old D&D had that with Dark Sun and Spelljammer to some extent. They just weren't all that popular. I saw very few campaigns in those settings take off. Much of my D&D was Forgotten Realms often just nominally as the actual adventures could have been in taking place in any generic fantasy, Lord of the Rings-based world. Which Age of Sigmar very much also has as the center of many Realms isn't much different (or at all different) from the World-That-Was. Which is fine. I understand that there a those that haven't grown blasé about Lord of the Rings-based fantasy worlds like I have. Fortunatly, Age of Sigmar offers both. I can have my crazy physic destroying, heavy metal album cover world of insanity while others can have Middenhiem and the Middenlands with the serial numbers filed off. The setting is big enough for both. While I would like GW to make sure it is known that both levels of the fantastical exist in Age of Sigmar, I don't want them to detail things to the point of WHFB or even Planscape. I like having large areas of, "Thar Be Dragons Here."

For a frame of reference I am an old hand when it comes to D&D type 'generic' fantasy. To very much include the 1990s regular D&D world but _________ is different where blank could be elves act like dwarves and dwarves act like elves or everything is Norse, Roman or whatever fills dozens upon dozens of spiral bound notebooks of lore penned by the DM that no player is going to ever bother reading. One) The cosmology of the Mortal Realms. Right off the bat the setting informs the audience this isn't a planet that basically functions like Earth except where fantasy usually breaks the laws of physics that everyone has basically agreed don't matter in fantasy (square/cube law, super materials, geology makes no sense, etc.). My preference for fantasy is like my preference for giant robot mecha; it's all outlandish, so we might as well make it crazy outlandish. Two) Evil is in control. I really do like the idea that the Mortal Realms really could be argued to still be in the Age of Chaos and calling it the Age of Sigmar is much like posting a 'Mission Accomplished' banner on an aircraft carrier. Certainly Chaos' influence has declined since the first Stormcast Enternals rode lightning down to the Mortal Realms, but it is a long ways from being secured by the forces of Order let alone Sigmar. In fact, it isn't certain at all that Order will come out on top at all. It could be the beginning of the Age of Nagash or Gorkamorka for anyone knows for certain. At the presence Chaos still holds the most sway. Three) As a fan of Conan the Barbarian I like the idea that much of the Mortal Realms are a savage place where the Age of Chaos has been so hard on humanity (all mortals really) that many societies have been beaten back to a primitive state. This is me reading into and interrupting some elements largely from Warcry and the Slaves to Darkness battletome, but I get the feeling that it is rather common for whole areas of the Realms to find themselves Pre-Iron and even Pre-Bronze Age in terms of development living in superstition of the Dark gods or under the thumb of some Chaos Lord. Sure, Cities of Sigmar show their peoples have returned to a period of medieval or early Renaissance showing what Order can accomplish furthering society, but the chaotic lands of Chaos are much less developed. Four) The terrain ranges from regular mundane terrestrial stuff found anywhere on earth, to images of the highest fantasy, to heavy metal album covers to literally anything one could imagine at the landscape in the Mortal Realms. Me, I typically like the idea of my armies battling on some epic heavy metal album cover type battlefield. While challenging, I do relish the idea of some visual media such as movies/misc. video or video games providing greater context to what the Mortal Realms can look like as the more fantastical elements can sometimes be more difficult to visualize without such a primer or previous experience with the more out there media some may not have. Five) Age of Sigmar takes a step away from the cliché vanilla, generic fantasy world. For me, sometimes the step isn't all that far from those clichés, but it is more than I saw much of the time when I was more active in D&D (which has also made strides since then with some of their newest settings). I know that WHFB is much beloved, in no small part, probably solidified some vanilla, generic fantasy clichés, but I really don't think it stands out all that much from all the other vanilla, generic fantasy worlds. Don't get me wrong, WHFB's setting is just as unique as the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragon Age, Elder Scrolls, and a whole host of others that do kinda blend all together to me after three times as many D&D campaigns in worlds pretty close to them all. I mean they are all unique in each one of their own ways, but they also felt pretty constrained to certain tropes and elements (mostly Lord of the Rings type stuff) that I never felt they had to either. Six) This is more of a hope than an actual, but I would like Age of Sigmar to be more cosmopolitan of a setting than typical of generic fantasy. What I mean is, I would actually like more factions based on ideology than on race. I really like how the Warcry cults are often composed of various races instead of the usuall evil dwarf cult, evil elf cult, evil human cult, beastman cult, etc. Part me would really like to see some Duardin Stormcast Enternals or Chaos Dwarves as just an addition to Slaves to Darkness and all the other Dark god battletomes. But that's just me.

I think the question should be graded out a bit. I mean do I enjoy a literal 1-for-1 clone of the army I am playing? Yes, if part of a teaching game which is how I often facilitate them if I am also providing both armies (usually by breaking mine into two smaller clone armies). Otherwise, not really. Do you mean the same faction and subfaction, but both armies aren't exactly the same? Again, not really as most subfactions draw upon certain units to be a sort of signature unit and therefor common in such a list. However, depending on the player they can still be a lot of fun. Do you mean same Faction but different subfactions and usually different models? I see no issue at all with that as many of the larger factions can feel very different making use of differing subfactions. The core of my gaming group (which mostly play 40k type games) funny enough all have a Tyranid force for Kill Team with all of 4 us independently picking different Hivefleets. Even more strange, is we each also have a Chaos Space Marine army for full 40k, and once again, none of them are the same traitor legion or focus on the same CSM units. Heck, 3 of the 4 of us have Chaos armies in Age of Sigmar, and again none of us have the same Chaos allegiance. I stick with Chaos Undivided with my Slaves to Darkness, the player that convinced me to play AoS plays Disciples of Tzeentch and the last player has Blades of Khorne. The point is, my core gaming group are fairly like-minded as we all have many of the same factions. However, each of us approach miniatures war gaming and army building from different directions. So our armies look pretty different even if they are the same faction. Especially since subfactions exist in both Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k. Even outside my core group to the wider player-base at the store I will eventually return to playing at when the pandemic ends have players with 40k armies in the same basic color scheme/subfaction as my four 40k armies. Only my custom space marine chapter (which look like the Raptors Chapter (Olive Drab) is different in rules (but not color scheme) since it is a custom chapter. I suspect that my Slaves to Darkness (default black and gold) isn't the only one. I know there are a few Lumineth players, but I am fairly certain I am the only Ymetrica player.

I don't know. I am warming up to the idea that the Lumineth tradition is they get announced and previewed but don't actually hit shelves for a half-a-year or more. 😅

The Lumineth stuff is quite nice. It's probably way too much to get all at once for me as I realistically haven't really done much painting on what I already have. As for pricing, I kinda want some sort of box set to hopefully even just a slight discount. Unfortunately, that's probably pretty unlikely. I do want to note, I don't know about that banner bearer model. It has a very big banner what looks to be attached to a fairly thin pole, and the model looks really top heavy. However, the terrain piece is divine. What is further going to slow my collecting of these new Lumineth is the new Battletome. Even if everything went as planned by GW with no pandemic, that's still only about a year with the last one. Which still would have likely beat the last two iterations of the space marine codex in turnaround time. I especially don't like the BR: Teclis half-job. When GW did that with Codex: Chaos Space Marines, I had to basically stop playing CSM as my rules became more and more spread out all over the place. I play Black Legion which shouldn't have mattered but after Vigilus, they were this sorta weird half-faction yet still a subfaction that was ultimately a pain to play with rules all over the place. Perhaps the only saving grace is that I am more interested in units already out for my army than those that have just been released. So I could probably play with nothing more than the 'old' battletome anyways. The Cursed City looks superb to me. If the price is right I might pick it up. I think I will wait for a second run as I assume it will sellout, and I have more that needs painting before I want to add more. If I can't get a hold of by then at least I saved some bucks. Belakor is a model I have been holding off from. While I am a fan of the Chaos Undivided, I still kinda hold Belakor responsible for the removal of Undivided Daemon Princes. That said, he is very useful in AoS and I believe exists in 40k. As long as the model is less than $110US it will be worth considering. Ultimately, a very good preview overall and one that very much has a lot I am interested in. I can't wait to read all the posts (not really here) on how AoS is getting all the new models and all 40k gets is more Primaris space marines.

I don't necessarily think Fyreslayers need to be merged with Kharadon Overlords. However, I do think using Fyreslayers to form the foundation (model-wise) for a more comprehensive terrestrial Duardin faction could prove to be more popular. Because as is Fyreslayers can be argued as limited in scope. Even if the faction was to get more creature type units. At its core, the faction is dwarven fire warriors. Adding Fyreslayers to say an order of Duardin warrior lodges who seek the collection of Grimnir across the Mortal Realms with each lodge taking up the aspect of each realm (or any combination of Mortal Realm aspects) would greatly expand the scope of the faction. This could be that the Fyreslayers are the most numerous as Grimnir's shards are largely found in Aqshy and as such they are still very common amongst all realms and Slayer lodges. At the same time Duardin lodges in Shyish could be more grim and stoic with an air of death they were like a mantle typically painted in dark cool colors assocated with death. Lodges from Ghur take on a more savage and primitive aspect that could add more of the monster hunting parts of old Slayers with a more primitive, almost Destruction like visage painted in more earthly tones. Ulgu Slayers could be more stealth/assassin orientated painted in dark colors. And so on and so on. Point is, this would allow Fyreslayers (or what ever the new name would like, Duardin Slayerlords or something) to greatly expand both as a faction and a model range. The beauty being that GW wouldn't even have to have a huge all at once release of models for it work. They might be able to repurpose many of existing Fyreslayers as more of a core of any Mortal Realm lodge with later specific units more focused on particular realms or even realm upgrade sprues to personalize models toward the customer's preferred Realm(s). Then GW could add model kits here and there for various Realm lodges of whatever their artist think would be cool for that group of Slayers to have in model form. I think that idea largely maintains the overall niche of what Fyreslayers bring to Age of Sigmar, but it expands the faction to be something that provides larger lore, modeling and painting foundation to what I see as a rather narrow scope currently. As mentioned it also greatly allows future models beyond more fire-based dwarfs or more fire-based monsters and can even be done rather piecemeal as to not over commit if GW doesn't want to.

I am extremely pleased with everything Lumineth Realm Lords. I liked the Vanari when I saw them as they are the core of how I like to build any pre-20th century type army with line infantry, cavalry and archers. When I saw the Alarith, I knew this was the faction for me. The Hurkan only further reinforce the idea I made the correct choice. I think the Lumineth just might always produce models I adore, and will likely be my favorite faction Games Workshop has ever created. That includes 40k in which I am far more interested in and involved. It even goes as far as eclipsing hints of other factions both AoS and 40k. Although, the very presence of the Lumineth does make me concerned how much I would like an Eldar Exodite faction should that ever materialize. If someone was to tell me that not only would I be playing any kind of fantasy game four-five years ago I would have doubted them. But if they were also to tell me that my favorite faction ever is a fantasy one, and based of elves as well, I would have thought them off their rocker. But here I am, and I don't think GW or anybody could create a faction more inline with my preferences.

As a Lumineth player, I don't feel cheated save maybe Stone Guard being too expensive per box of 5. I wanted Lumineth for what was in the Battletome. Not for what was previewed. Even knowing what is coming, I still want another 10 Stone Guard, 20 Wardens and 10 Dawn Riders. Everything previewed will be more of getting one of each for to display the whole faction rather than use on the tabletop anyways. They might provide interesting differing ways to play, but my Lumineth army was always intended to be primarily Alarith. Even if it wasn't, I had the battletome for a good long while from the box set. I didn't think it would be so fast for the next wave of models, but I knew they were coming. If the other temples were half as interesting to me as the Mountain, I probably would have just started with a smaller army since it isn't like I am getting in a game for even another half-a-year from now. Plus, I have a perfectly fine Slaves to Darkness army to play and way too many models still wanting painting. As for Broken Realms: Teclis, I play three (well, four now) factions in 40k. I didn't pick up a single Psychic Awakening book for any of them. Not even either of the Vigilus books which had quite a bit for my Black Legion and Genestealer Cult armies. I didn't bother getting the Codex: Chaos Space Marine II. I haven't even bothered picking up a Space Marine Chapter supplement for my Primaris space marine army. What I'm trying to say is, I really don't think I will pick up Broken Realms: Teclis. If I do, it won't be for the rules. I don't pick up models or rules seeking more optimization or power. I pick the models I do because I like the general idea of how they work or like how they look. I am that guy whose army rarely has more than 1 unit of something that isn't a Troop/Battleline slot. It is only after my collection of a faction matures that I will sometimes go back get more models of a unit I like. It just how I collect and play the game.

It is just this model.

This is conjecture on my part. That said: I don't think that it is a coincidence that there are four aspects each being very elemental in their nature. Additionally, each can correspond to the classical 4 elements as in Mountain=Earth, Wind=Air, River=Water and Zenith=...fire? Let's take a moment to consider the word Zenith in the context of a faction named off the word illumination from the Realm of Light. Considering those words, I think it's easy to think of Zenith of the Sun or its highest point, often when it is at its brightest. The sun is also basically a ball of fire IRL. So in our context it fits very well with the four classic elements which was a classical Greek and Hindi idea both. Which the Lumineth are at least partly inspired aesthetically. However, Hysh's light can't just be fire since Aqshy exists. It also is more interesting to be more of an esoteric positive energy that polarizes well with Ulgu's negative energy since it can be demonstrated that in the Mortal Realms shadow is not simply the absence of light. So I believe that Zenith is the placeholder for the classic element fire in a universe where light itself is an elemental force of positive energy which also happens to be the fundamental aspect of an entire Mortal Realm in which the very Lumineth are from. And to be a student of this aspect temple be both the most challenging and most regarded as to literally be at the zenith of understanding. This has been my Hyshian scholarly dissertation, I thank you for your time.

I do want to point out that none of the mounts really look anything like the archers' helmet totem. While I don't think rider totem and mount have to be the same thing and there can be some artist license. I do think it is more likely we haven't seen the actual creature that goes with that that totem.

I also think a lot of new model kits get lumped into the mono-pose category when they still have some posing options, additional bits and/or still fairly easy to convert. I say that because there are kits that aren't that. Genestealer Cult Aberrants is worst for that I have encountered only having head and weapon options. Even some weapon bits are shared between models in the same kit requiring two boxes to make all the poses available to Aberrants. After ten, you have all possible poses without at least moderate converting. The only fortunate thing is they are supposed to be misshapen, so you don't have to be delicate how you fill in gaps. As for the Lumineth, I don't know how or if you really want to add more pose-ability. Wardens are meant to be placed in an offset rank and file. I suppose one might want the spears angled up more, but I certainly wouldn't want them angled down anymore. Overall, I think the angle they're at is okay. While I make sure to have a few on the build table just in case, I also like that the Wardens naturally fit together, so their spears are at the same angle. Which I find very important for a super highly trained military unit that would act as one. Much of what I said about Wardens also applies to Sentinels. To keep Shining Companies you want offset rank and file, and I want the arrow tips to all be at the same angle to demonstrate military precision and drilling. With the Stone Guard, if they didn't have capes (which are neither for nor against) I think their hammers could have offered more posing options. However, with the capes there is only so much that can be done that would still look natural with the way the capes flow as are being wind swept. The Dawn Riders are a model kit I was just happy to be done building. Some time in the future I still plan on getting another ten, and I dread when that happens. I can't actually remember if there was much of an ability to angle the lances or not. If do get more, I want to have units of ten in the process of dropping their lances to charge with the next five I get filling in the angles of the lances I already have. I assume I am going to have to convert, but I don't see that being much more difficult than just building the models themselves. I think a better example, at that I have encountered, are the Warcry cultists. I have most of them. Most cults to offer some additional bits, but you are going to have repeats if you get the two in one box set. Most of the models are thin, spindly and delicate and certainly don't lend themselves to changing the posing nor easy converting. I didn't want to mess them much so to give the illusion of difference I often removed details off the second one. My Warcry cultists are largely for my Ravagers S2D army, so I think it will be fine as they show up late, don't draw much attention and when attacked don't stay on the table long. I can't say for sure, but the repeating would probably be a much bigger issue in actually playing Warcry since the few models bring more attention to them. Ultimately, I think the mono-posing issue of more modern models (nice alliteration) of GW is more complicated than often discussed. At least in my experience as I have built a lot of the newer stuff from GW. Most of the time I think a lot more of what gets called mono-pose isn't and even if it is, can be converted/kitbashed a lot easier than any internet discussion I have seen makes it seem. Well, beyond those grognards that started converting in metal. At the same time, there are a number of newer model kits that are very hard to convert are have issues/concessions that do interfere trying to avoid copy/clone models. I like this direction for the most part, but I also never really cared for building models and often see converting/kitbashing a necessarily evil to get a little more out of a box of models. I can understand some loss of that comes with the design philosophy.

Okay, I wanted to try a rough visual experiment by adding beards to the mob miniatures. I'll have to admit that some of the dynamism still shows through. I also stretched the picture a bit as I think the posing of the mob miniatures may still have something to do with it where the stubby limbs of the Fyreslayers often prevent it. In any even, the picture is kinda funny.

Oh, that stuff is fine. I was talking about them not making the playoffs this year.

All I can say is Age of Sigmar has been decidedly absent of Solomon Kane for far too long.

I won't hear anything bad on Jerry Jones and the Cowboys. They're Ymetrica's team! 😋

I like the Fyreslayer design aesthetic. I have even flirted with the idea of starting a small army of them down the road in that mythical future when I have my current armies largely complete. What would hold me back is, as mentioned, is they seem to be too niche a concept for the kind of game that Age of Sigmar is. They'd be fine in Warcry. In some respects they feel to me as if Scions of the Flame into a full-fledged faction. I get the concept, but where do they go from there. Not to say there isn't more design space. I just don't know where Fyreslayers are going without a second wave of models or even becoming a subfaction with in a larger duardin faction not yet created. And without it or an insanely cheap boxed set, I don't see me truly entertaining the idea of actually starting an army of them not knowing.