Saturmorn Carvilli

By the convention of the setting and the Age of Chaos, wouldn't all dwarves (except the obvious holdouts/escapees) be Chaos Dwarves? At very least part of the unwitting masses mentioned in Slaves to Darkness. I mean the reason that Sigmar launched his attack when he did was because Chaos was close to permanently securing the many of the Mortal Realms. At least that's my understanding of the setting. Something like 90% of all mortal races (save Realms such as Shyish) were forced to serve Chaos in one way or another just to survive.

I never did answer the OP. It could certainly be that I spend at most 1/4 to 1/3 of my GW hobby time with AoS, but I am not really feeling that it is that neglected. 2020 brought me a second army with the Lumineth. Which only more than a year ago I probably would have said, I have absolutely no interest in any kind of fantasy as I had long since been burned out from D&D for more than a decade. More directly to the Stormcast Enternals issue. I believe that when players speak about the SCE being in a good place, they mean in terms of number or models/recent releases. I play a very heavy Chaos Warrior and Knight S2D army which is a dark reflection of some of SCE's weaker units. So I know all too well the uphill struggle sometimes. With many other players being rather callous as S2D and SCE have a bunch of options many of which can make an effective army. But if you are like me, you aren't made of money nor want to have every option your faction allows to be able to build a decent list. I am certainly not going to ever buy Chaos Marauder anything. They are very unattractive models to me and not what I am seeking with my army (elite, heavy armor). I can say be grateful your rules aren't too good. The poster faction is always going to generate more ire when they have good rules. I also have a Primaris space marine army for 40k. The general belly-aching about Primaris increased at least tenfold when a second codex arrived for space marines a little over a year ago. And it really hasn't stopped since. All I can say is play your army to the best of your ability. If you are very lucky, might have a gaming group that will make concessions to balance things out to make a competition of games. Even if they don't, the meta wheel in the sky keeps on turning. When it gets around to favoring you again, you'll be a much stronger player from all those games you struggled through. Again, with my Primaris marines. Because I played them before they became amazing, when they did I could handicap myself down to 25% less points than my point and still handily win games because I already had to learn how to compete with less than stellar rules than didn't allow the amount of forgiveness good rules did. I know it stinks feeling like you don't ever have a chance at winning. I don't think my 40k Genestealer Cult army is ever going to win a game even if they did have good rules. Goodness help my gaming group if I do ever figure them out though. I still have fun and try my best even if I don't really think I have any kind of chance.

It just makes sense that Mountain aspects would use a hammer weapon to me. I'm a geologist, and I use a hammer more than I use a computer at work. That last sentence is probably all one needs to know why I like the Alarith so much. As for sword wielding Lumineth, I don't think the Underworlds two-handed swordsman is some one-off. I would imagine that is a preview of a Lumineth unit to come at some point. So long as you like the style of that model, I think when the unit it is based on you'll be fine.

Talking about races having 'their' weapons that other races don't use. Could you imagine if that is how our world worked? The First World sticking with semi-automatic weapons based on the M1 Garand or sub-machine guns during the Cold War calling the StG44 and the AK47 Second World weaponry and bolt action or breech loaders what the Third World use? I don't know. Seems limiting and kinda bizarre to me. Sometimes I don't understand other GW gaming fans. Like 40k Eldar players getting upset that Primaris space marines are 'stealing' their unit composition only have one type of weapon for the whole unit like that is all that unique. I like the mallets on Lumineth. They are no less silly than the cinder block sized chunk of stone or steel that any other GW hammer head seems to be. The mallets still have an elven, and more importantly, aleven aesthetic to them. To me, calling hands-off on a class of weapon based on race seems to just further insultingly charactercher them making them more 2 dimensional and unrealistic. Which I think AoS should try to avoid as the mythic high fantasy of the setting is already hard to comprehend at times. As a bit of a tangent, one of the things I like best about AoS is that it has the opportunity to be a far more cosmopolitan setting than more than 90% of other fantasy settings. Warcry cultists aren't just a human cult, duardin cult, aelf cult or gor cult, but they are often a composite of them demonstrating that the tribes they come from aren't like most fantasy settings of the elven nation or the dwarven nation. Just tribes of mortals (or humans and demi-humans as I know 'em from D&D) just trying to survive day-to-day in a Chaos control realm. The aspect I enjoy most about Cities of Sigmar is they are also very cosmopolitan. Sure it is by convenience of merging a bunch of WHFB remnants, well worth expanding upon. I think it would be nice if we moved away from basing things on the races within the setting and more other commonalities to make factions.

It kinda has always been that way. The differences as I see it are: Space marines are going to a full model refresh and as GW Stormcast Enternals x12 are getting an even larger number of releases for even a new faction (which few think of Primaris marines as). I also think far less consider Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves Deathwatch and all other space marines as different factions sharing models (when for game/model purposes they probably should). So many lump all that into one, already established faction which makes it seem like insanity to get the number of new models they have. I am not suggesting Primaris haven't been heavy-handed in new models. Just that when one steps back a bit, it isn't as bad as it is perceived. The same has happen to a lesser degree on the Chaos side with two new factions (Death Guard and Thousands). Which again for game and model purposes I think should be considered seperate factions that share (less) models with other factions and have similar aesthetics. Additionally, CSM recieved a nice update to a number of their older scuplts which likely fuel the fire for some factions still heavily dependent on Finecast ([cough] Eldar). Finally, what is really chaffing a number of active/mathhammer players is that space marines have pretty good rules. The big difference is nearly every faction in 40k has been well established in the number of units they have available. Many of those factions have old, outdated sculpts and may have lost of number of units from the so called, 'no model, no rules' thing. But they still have decades of existence that got them where they are. Additionally, there realistically aren't that many avenues for adding more factions. Sure, GW can add a bunch of Chaos mirrors of Imperial factions and a few more Xenos ones, but I also don't think it is that hard of an argument to say that 40k is near/at capacity for factions. Especially if players expect them to receive something new at least every couple of years. Age of Sigmar on the other hand, is only half-a-decade old. With only a few factions composed of models from before the game's existence. Even less are factions that have all five of those years as being a thing. With likely a number of factions that haven't been added yet. I think it is also more likely that GW is attempting to get out at least a few more new factions before coming back around to add major reinforcements to the ones that already exist. And I believe GW currently see it as far less profitable to refresh WHFB models that made it to AoS (Sorry Skaven, Lizardmen and Cities of Sigmar players). Which is likely why after more than a year there has been non-easy-to-build Chaos Warriors and Knights. They probably aren't coming any sooner than those other former WHFB faction models. I honestly think that GW wants to largely get a few more brand-new factions into AoS. Intermixed but largely afterward the smaller, more popular AoS born factions will get new stuff (along with a healthy infusion of models that the GW artists were inspired to create). As much as it pains me, I don't see the pre-AoS models (or even factions with a good number units) getting refreshed models or even new units for quite a while save when GW artists inspiration for something. As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see Skaven, Lizardmen, Cities of Sigmar, the older Death/Destruction factions and Slaves to Darkness changing all that much for the next few years. I don't say that with malice. I just think that is how it is going to be until at least most of the AoS born factions have a couple dozen model/unit options. My impression (based only on my opinion) from GW is those factions have models that are serviceable enough as to not be concerned about updating them any time soon.

I am a big fan of the Lumineth aesthetic. I like the more traditional holy trinity of rank and file (line, cavalry and archers) of the Vanari, and I adore the Alarith even more. The Alarith are a rare instance of sophisticated elegance not usually given to fantasy four core elements: earth. As for the teasers, there isn't much to work with, but I lean toward enjoying them more than not with what little of their is revealed. That's what I like about the Lumineth. Even with such a small collection of models, they cover the standard fantasy army units while at the same time they include some of the more daring models of all of AoS that attempt to distance itself from generic fantasy. So the faction can both have its feet on the ground while also having its head in the clouds. Literally, when that cloud riding model is released. My big concern is that the Lumineth is a highly compartmentalized faction consisting of at least six elements (Teclis, Mountain, Cloud, River, Zenith and Tyrion) at its conception. While I am sure the faction will retain some cohesion, it may very much feel like a mini-Grand Alliance of aevles. I get the feeling that each elemental aspect is likely going to be rather thin and consists of about 3-5 units in total (about what the Alarith have now). On the other hand, I think the Teclis and Tyrion elements could be expanded to be rather robust parts if not separate but at very least when combined. So that extreme I enjoy may prove to make them somewhat irritating to other players at least in terms of potential model releases. I personally have no doubt that the Lumineth will become a popular faction as more high elf throw-back units materialize. I am concerned that this may lead to elemental aspects falling to wayside though. All the while, annoying other faction players as they perceive the Lumineth hogging more than its fair share of model releases. Which is already happening despite the Lumineth having a notably small initail release.

The rarity of Lumineth might also be tied to the price of their models. I am usually price insensitive anymore when it comes GW, but even I had to cut back on what I wanted due to the price Lumineth. I still don't consider that initial boxed set to be worth much more than a Start Collecting and a regular Battetome. I actually thought at that asking price it was going to include the pocket sized battletome. If AoS 3rd ed does happen this year and GW had a bunch in the warehouse, that would have been a good way to clear stock and increase apparent value of that box. It appears to be that Lumineth are positioned to become the most compartmentalized (read: faction made up of smaller factions) faction of all AoS. Even surpassing Stormcast chambers. LRL are set up to have no less than 6 subfactions (Teclis, Mountain, River, Cloud, Zenith, Tyrion). It is entirely possible GW might make this faction one of extremes with throw-back high-elf inspired units, such as the current Vanari, while including some of the more daring AoS units hinted at with Alarth and teaser images. I think there a decent change this faction may end up as one of the larger ones (sorry everybody else in advance) just through this compartmentalization. Even going pretty bare bones, Lumineth would have about 3 times the number of units to fill in everything. I can also see GW pivoting toward creating more Teclis/Tyrion focused units as a way to lure in those more keen on the old high-elf aesthetic. Even now, prospective players can ignore the Alarith (Mountain aspect) very easily. It makes for very few unit options, but those units cover the rank and file trinity (line, cavalry and shooting). I think all GW has to do is throw in some more high-elf inspired Leaders and one or two elite type units and there could be a number of players that might as well rip the elemental aspects portion right out their tome. Especially when GW gets around to the Tyrion side of the Lumineth. As a fan of the elemental aspects stuff, I think there is a chance that each get a few units per aspect and see little from there on. I think the consensus is that they likely aren't super popular. With them not being popular, I could easily see GW moving away from adding more once established. Which as a fan could be the worst of two worlds. It could be entirely possible Lumineth explode in number of model kits, but for any given elemental aspect they are super anemic. So the internet (which I think has gotten so very overly sensitive to not getting noticed by senpai especially 40k) complain even more about constant aelf and Lumineth releases. While at the same time, anyone trying to play an army based on one or more of the elemental aspects feels constantly starved and as ignored as duardin appear to be right now.

Are you referring to allies? Lumineth have a very, very short list of other factions they will allow to ally with them. More accurately, I assume you build one army, finish it, then build another army? Games Workshop can try all they like, but a customer is only going to buy what they want. You and I might want a second, third or fifth army, but just by participating on this forum, it shows we probably are a bit more involved in the hobby compared to the average player. I suspect there are far more people out there that stick with a 'main' army and less commonly build another one. Especially to the same size of their 'main.' If I was to hazard a guess, I would say GW is leaving money on the table not expanding armies after a while. Many new collectors often wait for these milestone release waves or occasionally become enamored with an additional wave unit that finally has them start an army. I did it with Primaris space marines with the expansion of Phobos (the scout, tacticool looking armor) marines. Heck, my Slaves to Darkness army was initiated in part by the announcement of a Start Collecting and new battletome. I personally think a combination of new factions and expansions with the occasional refresh to existing factions is probably the most optimal way to make money in a miniatures wargame. There's probably a time when there gets to be too many factions and/or a faction becomes too bloated with units. Which I think arguments in 40k can be made for both occurring. For Age of Sigmar, I don't think there are too many factions, and I also don't think any faction is too bloated with units yet. Though, I think the number of factions is getting there, but many a faction could use a second wave infusion of models.

Not to mention the $100 price tag on the box. I am interested in playing Apocalypse, but I not almost 2 other board games interested in playing Apocalypse. That box had little reason to be more than $60 to me.

I can't exactly say which bits of my Slaves to Darkness army I already had painted by the start of 2020. Considering I started this army in late November of 2019 it wasn't much. There's still a lot to finish in there too. I have been far too distracted with 40k stuff to get back to this army much this year. I managed even less painting on my Lumineth army. By the time it finally arrived, I was getting burned out from painting and generally overwhelmed with life. I did manage to get everything at least built, primed and initial base coat. Unfortunately, this army has been moved way to the back of the cue. I probably won't start until it becomes more definite that I can get back to gaming again. So I have a lot of stuff to work on in the coming year. I can't say for sure, but I do think I still managed to reduce my pile of shame even with everything I picked up this year. Next year, I am fairly sure I will have at least a couple of my 40k armies completely painted as well as most if all my kill teams done. I don't have any plans trying to finish up my AoS armies just yet. However, I also don't think I will be starting any new armies or painting commissions next year and my current armies only have a handful of things I would like to add. So it is still possible.

I have both a Slaves to Darkness and Chaos Space Marine army and most of my gaming group also has Chaos in some form. Let me the first to tell you horns on a Chaos worshiper's head is more common than hair. A lot of people assume those horns are on the helmets. Most of the time that isn't actually the case. More often than not, the helmets have to be modified around the Chaos/Warp mutations. Assuming what ever mutated the mortal didn't do the same to the armor.

Play Dankhold Troggoths or Bonereaper Morteck Crawlers. That will allow you to punish anyone that conga lines stuff. Age of Sigmar is already pretty strict on coherency. Combine it with many buffs needing wholly within to work and being a mostly melee centered game, and I think Conga line tactics aren't as useful overall. Besides what's a tidy row but an organized Conga line with coherency redundancy. The inherent nature of line infantry combat is present a line that isn't easily flanked. When an AoS army has 6 feet of line to defend it probably isn't going to have the luxury of much depth for their lines. Me, I tend toward 2 ranks for infantry and archers while having a single rank for cavalry, and I tend for 15-20 infantry/archers units and 10 cavalry units. If this was 8th ed 40k, I would be with you on Conga lines being an issue. However, I think AoS already largely has controls in place to deal with it. While AoS models everything individually sure, but perhaps it would be better for you to not consider large Battleline units as skirmishing. Instead, consider them more a unit that can be pliable to the situation. Kinda like a real formation would be. War is a messy business afterall. Like I said, I think AoS is more honest (or at least less abstract) in terms of formation combat compared to a few 'movement tray' formation miniatures war game. A player has to actually move the attacking models in to combat ranges over, say, catching a corner and delivering a full frontage of attacks. The game already has built-in strengths and weaknesses to going to thin or deep with formations for the most part. Even the ever present drops rules steer armies from going MSU to some extent which without a proper Command and Control rules set would be a much bigger issue. The drawback is this can be time-consuming piling in each model. Especially as AoS becomes surprisingly tactically and fiddly (far more fiddly than tactical though) at this part of the game. *** I don't buy the idea GW wants players to field larger and larger armies. I mean they do, but they also know that it endangers new recruitment. I always enjoy smaller points games, but locally and online the player base usually shoots down games of less than 2,000pts. Heck, when 40k received a points reset some players were considering going to 2250pts as to keep the same number of models on the table. So I see it less as GW wants players to buy more models (though, they surely do want that) and more players want bigger games. I know it would likely be easier for me to play a 2500pt game of AoS than a 1500pt game just because of other players' preferences in my area. Sure, miniatures games such as these have a working points spectrum. Too few points or too many and the system breaks down. That said, I think more often than not players are pushing on the too many points side of the spectrum. Especially veteran players who want all the things and bring every single model they can. I think GW actually goes out of its way to ensure there are steps to allow players to get to that via skirmish (common parlance) games such as Warcry and Kill Team and small point games such as Combat Patrol and 40k's Crusade and some extent AoS Path to Glory. I think GW is all too aware that established players are going to push the upper points limit. While that limit may be. "A bridge too far" for newer players to jump into the game without intermediate steps.

I am not sure what you mean by measuring from bases led to gamey rules. Save maybe tanks Tokyo Drifting across the battlefield to provide more cover. Or maybe tri-pointing which was less a case of measuring and more a case of penalty free escaping from combat. Which often when most casualties occur in battle. Or in GW games should at very least force Bravery/Leadership of the retreating unit and any unit that sees it (because they don't know if it was a tactical withdrawal or a route). I think there are a number of players that expect to be additionally rewarded for maneuvering a flank or rear attack beyond increasing the number of attackers since a larger circle is going to create more area than a smaller circle. Often times when the formation is predetermined his has to be abstracted into bonus damage. However, in AoS the more fluid shaping of units already accomplish this by being the bigger circle and thus being able to fit more attackers in. Age of Sigmar also is often more generous in entrapping an encircled unit further preventing escape as individual models can be stretched quite than to prevent escape far more readily than typical predefined rank and file game units. I suppose 'Pile In' does take a relatively simple game and creates a lot of positioning complication. I don't know if it can be avoided without becoming even more gamey though. I know some players do like to bring up the idea a unit's offensive power is all focused forward when in line. My understanding is this is only partly true. Even in the fog of war I find it unlikely the enemy is going to catch a flank or rear completely by surprise. The target unit may have not be able to counter as well via removing some effectiveness of its arms and armor, or more likely, getting squeezed by being pressed on all sides. If anything that should provide a penalty to flanked unit not a bonus to the flanking one. Excepting in the case of enfiladed units, and even then I only know it was effective with guns and similar mostly flat trajectory weapons with a long maximum range. I also think it is important to consider that on Earth, no historical army had to consider flying or teleporting units when devising strategy, tactics and training. As such, they were largely free to double front their attacking power. However, in AoS this is certainly not the case. Flying and teleporting units are common enough that I would argue that units would incorporate counter fighting techniques robbing flanks and rear attacks of many advantages save those already mentioned above. What I do think flanking would still have an effect on Morale and/or Command and Control. Even in AoS. However, the game's Bravery system is a little bare bones save something simple like a unit needed to make a Bravery check when encircled or XX% is encircled with failure robbing the unit the ability to fight back as their leadership rallies them out of disorganization. Even that seems a little harsh given Bravery mostly falls between 6 and 10. The long and short of it is. I think there several players than believe there should be a game rule bonus to flanking and rear attacks beyond the inherent ones performing such maneuver because other games have such rules, and they view such maneuvers more difficult to perform only for the inherent advantages. I remain unconvinced that AoS needs such a system as of yet. Or more accurately, I think Command and Control (C2) take far more priority than propping up flanking advantages. Unfortunately, I don't see C2 going very far as GW and GW players do not like losing perfect control over their armies. *** Formation Options: Certainly, I have played Napoleonic rank and file games which commonly have line formation, column, battle column, square, skirmish and a few others. Even playing AoS make use of these formations because even with individual models, placing units in these formations work. P.S. Sorry for the short essay that also happens to wander a bit from the topic and chock-full of opinion a portion being probably ill-informed. I came from other wargames into GW ones. I often find GW has strange ideas concerning wargaming. Often they have elements that are commonly found in other wargames. But just as common, they don't seem to quite understand they those games have them and also seem to include them in their games just because they think wargames have to have them. Morale and Command and Control being by far the biggest offenders with my opinion those being the most critical elements for any kind of simulation of battle.

Depends on what one means when they say skirmish game. In the common parlance of what skirmish is defined by modern miniatures war games, I don't think AoS ever was. Well except for SoB now. Since skirmish is synonymous with low model count where most individual models operate as independent units. However, if one is talking about the older definition of what a miniatures skirmish game is: a game where models are individually based and do not have to maintain a set cohesive formation. Then AoS is still very much that and unlikely to move away from that. Even with the inclusion of rules such as the LRL which offer bonuses for forming in particular formations or players making use of movement trays usually setup to place their units more in line formation doesn't change that AoS is still a skirmish game under the older definition. As a commentary, I like it that way much more. Rank and file games often like to pretend that soldiers didn't form uneven formations and were very good at keeping a very uniform shape. Many rank and file games like to turn combat into a sort of geometry and ray (the mathematical definition of ray) puzzle where even if a single man crosses so terrain hazard the entire formation has to suffer. Age of Sigmar, on the other hand, allows for more free form unit formations. A player isn't bound to some arbitrary shape predefined by the game. They are free to experiment with various shapes (though some shapes are more optimal than others) as well as mold their units to the situation more readily. As a result, I think in many ways AoS is more honest in its approach when players with significantly large units of infantry meet. Frontage is still important as is flanking is some respects in picking how much of the enemy can engage as well as more surface area to get your combatants stuck in. That is not to say AoS doesn't present issues in recreating a more rank and file experience. The morale system and unit coherency are weak as forms of unit integrity (as in a unit being disorganized, shaken, or routed). The leader/hero wholly within somewhat place a patch here, but the mechanics are very weak. The free form nature of unit placement can also be a time consumer as well. As well as a host of other issues. That said, so long as the mechanics of AoS still encourage, or at very least not impair, a player taking a more rank and file approach with the appropriate army, I think prefer it to forces more concrete unit formation orientations.

I honestly think that nearly all factions can meet that criteria in the OP in some way or another. Or else they are going to be particularly effective in AoS or pretty much any wargame as they largely revolve around attack and maneuver. And being a 28-32mm scale game it is very likely to focus on infantry anyways. Even if a faction doesn't at this point, GW has definitely shown it is entirely possible it might not stay like that for years anymore. I would have to ask what are you willing to give up for excellent damage and good movement? Durability, where your units get one good hit in and then evaporate? Board Control, where your units are so points intensive you can't control much of the table at one time? Reliably, as some things CAN deal huge chunks of damage but not all that often or not without risk (like Skaven). Synergies between units such Hero aura dramatically changing their effectiveness? Something else? What I am getting at is something like the quality triangle (i.e. faster, cheaper or better; you only get two). You named what you want your army to do, but you haven't named what you are willing to give up to have it. That might help inform the thread a little more. I mean it is all well and good to mention what you want your faction does well, but you might also want to know what your faction does poorly too and if that is a dealbreaker.

It sounds like you don't have an Age of Sigmar army at this point. While I can't really help you pick something that gives you a fighting chance against Daughters of Khaine. What I want to suggest is not to think of Games Workshop, or really any miniatures game, like that. My primary reason for that is Games Workshop games change so very quickly that it is entirely possible that by the time you buy, build and paint those models things could have changed. Even if you accomplish putting together an army, all it takes is the Latest FAQ/Errata, Chapter Approved (or whatever AoS calls is) or even an edition change (which is strongly suspected next year given GW's current history). So any army can quickly find itself not meeting those objectives. Secondly, even if the particular army is a good match-up for DoK, that doesn't mean you are going to like the way it plays or even looks on the table. It is entirely possible that while you and your friend have barn burner games more often than not you might not like how your army accomplishes it. I mean I can do okay with my Slaves to Darkness army of Warriors and Knights, but to do so I have to play very attrition style of letting my opponent grind on my army ensuring I keep more bodies on the table where I need them. Which is counter to wanting an average to elite army that can brutalize the enemy army but lacks range, speed and sometime area control. I would also say since AoS is a miniatures game, and more specifically a GW miniatures game; the models probably should come first. At least early on. I like AoS, 40k and Kill Team well enough, but I will admit they ain't exactly a high bar in challenging one's mental acumen more often than not compared to the wider world of miniatures and other tabletop games. Given the time and money of entry I certainly wouldn't want an army just because it functions at that moment in time. I mean maybe you have already selected those factions in your OP as ones you already like and are looking for things to further narrow it down. I still wouldn't necessarily choose how well it competes with another army/faction as criteria to make my selection. That just seems too ephemeral to be useful criteria to me. That is my view on it. You might have other feeling concerning it. I just want to bring it up as I have seen too many players go something like this route only to become frustrated and bitter in a half-year's time as they play games discovering those elements as they start to play actual games and it isn't anything like they imagined.

It's totes Archaon. Like, he's still technically mortal, so he's still, like, relatable and stuff. But he has, like, a totally good job that he is crazy good at that brings in massive duckets. Also, his job forces him to work out like all the time. So you know he has a killer beach bod. Even his bosses like totally respect him so much they tried to kill him, and he got, like, more powerful with an even more bodacious ride. He also has a crazy big house in a very central location of the Mortal Realms that like literally everyone wants. 'Bout the only downside to him is he is, like, a total workaholic. Otherwise, completely babelicious to the max.

Tell you what, may the faction you play have six dozen different units in which most of them are noticeably mediocre. That way to can have a huge collection of stuff that sits on the shelf because even in casual games they can't really do anything on the table. Because that is what is sound like your are saying to me as a S2D player. Would it make you happier if Slaves to Darkness were broken into the Everchosen, Warriors of Chaos Undivided, Marauders of Chaos, Monsters of Chaos and Call of the Warcry or more factions so the current S2D faction didn't have a ton of options? Because it wouldn't bother me if it meant I didn't auto-lose to Bonereapers because I like Warriors and Knights more than the current, ever-shifting hotness. There isn't even a Damned Legion (what I assume you mean by sub-allegiances) specific for Warriors/Knights. The closest is Ravagers which so much better fits Marauders and Warcry Cultist heavy armies. Yes, some of the stuff in the S2D battletome works quite well. However, a good portion of it isn't very good at all. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have substantial collection every S2D model to be able to cherry pick the stuff (most of which I don't want to paint or play) that allow me to play games that give me a fair chance at playing a game and participating in an activity where the outcome is already decided. A house full of spoons of different sorts isn't going to be much help if what you need is a knife.

I don't agree with the OP. I think largely the Lumineth are pretty consistent in game mechanics design space. Perhaps a little light on the variety of units, but the design space via the lore is wide open to fill in the blanks. And I think if and when those units arrive the more complete picture will yield a better consideration of Lumineth in general. Some factions are apparent with only a few units. I don't think Lumineth are one of them. In fact, I think being overly complicated with their units makes a lot sense for a faction of know-it-alls creating a Rube Goldberg army that lesser minds (read: everyone) can't understand its brilliance. (High-martial prowess rank and file units- ) One of the biggest draws for me was the more classical rank and file of the Vanari units. I consider myself having more of a historical miniatures war gaming background though I haven't really explored much further than 30 Years War. Even then, I am most spent time with late 18th Century or WWII and beyond. I like a bit of grounding in my army. My first faction is Slaves to Darkness where I focused on Warriors and Knights, and you could be a box of donuts that if they had crossbowmen, archers, musketeers or cannons I'd would add them in as well. From my time with Napoleonic games I am quite accustom to the rock-paper-scissors that is line infantry-cavalry-artillery. So I like to have each element represented. S2D doesn't have the ranged compoent. LRL does. It is a little odd how few factions can generate or historical looking armies in Age of Sigmar to me. Not to say that is a bad thing. Just that I would call out any fantasy army using those elements as copying another faction's setup. Just that faction is being a little more grounded in its core units. Which is what I think Vanari units are trying to accomplish. (Every unit is a wizard- ) Let's get this outta the way: Not every unit is a Wizard. Most of my army (I lean heavy Alarith) units in fact aren't Wizards. I think as more temples are fleshed out this will continue to be the case. Not to mention the Tyrionic side of the Lumineth. However, just considering the Vanari units, I think it is easier to consider the Wizard thing to be just another special ability they have. An overly complex one (flavor win), but since it is built on an established system, it takes no time to explain how it works to an opponent. Unlike certain Chaos god based factions ([cough], all of them). (Elemental Themed subfactions-) They aren't really subfactions even if one the current Great Nations of Hysh makes the Alarith that. Which I don't really agree with subfactions being these models are really good in this group, but GW is going to be GW. As for the elemental theme, on one hand they aren't THAT far removed from the cliche earth, air, water and fire basically being mountain, wind, river and zenith (personal editorial: light). At the same time, they are specific enough to make a difference at least to me. It isn't earth it is mountain which bring a focus to it that is important to not gloss over. Same for all the other temples. It is also important that going this route creates a sort of hierarchy of River, Mountain, Wind and Zenith. Which again may seem overly complicated. Which again I would point out is in theme with know-it-all, over thinkers that are Hyshian Lumineth. (Animal Themed units-) I like the bison/yak theme quite a bit especially how well it ties into elemental theme. Again they aren't cows which I think is a label placed there by people that don't know their animals very well and/or looking for a way to insult models they don't like. I truly appreciate GW going with the yak/bison totem animal for the Alarith. It is a recognized animal native to mountainous areas know to extraordinary stamina/toughness. Just viewing one it is easy to see why some cultures would attribute them to wisdom with their seemingly pondering, self-reflective visage. Also, while generally passive, yak/bison are terrorizing when on a rampage. It is very easy to see them as like a mountain that has come to life looking to trample anything in its path. Which reflect the Alarith quite well. They are incredibly resilience, more likely to move you out the way than you move them but slow to attack. I truly enjoy the fact that GW didn't pick some mountain predator or known territorial animal such as a wildcat, boar or bear. Panthers, rhinos and elephants just don't have the same connection to mountainous regions that a yak does. They also, save the elephant, aren't known for being passive, wise beast either. (Expendable Resources-) Honestly, this rule does feel a bit tacked on. It kinda gives me the impression that the designers felt that the Lumineth just weren't quite where they wanted them to be and add Aetherquartz only to find it too strong so also added a -1 Bravery effect. I have no issue that it is similar to KO as I don't these faction sharing similar mechanics cheapens either faction. It isn't like KO and LRL play anything alike even sharing it. The mechanic is pretty common in tabletop games anyway so it isn't like it is innovative. Lorewise, Aetherquartz can come off as the faction having a strange sort of drug addiction with it. Even the way Hysh is currently written kinda gave me the impression that the Lumineth don't want to dally away from the realm to long as they literally become dumber (well, not as brilliant anyways). Which could generate some interesting stories. Just not the kind of stories I want from my escapist fantasy war game. Outside of Stormcast Enternals, I think Lumineth Realm Lords have perhaps some of the most wide open areas for design space in terms of models, units, lore and perhaps even rules. I think it is less to do with wasted design space and more to do with incomplete designs. I think the reason why many feel the Lumineth have a small number of warscrolls (which really isn't that bad on the AoS grading curve) is that the line consist of a number of named heroes with few unamed, three generic/core (the Vanari) units with very limited options and a very specific mononastic order (the Alarith). I think it time as the faction expands the design will make more sense. Or be more palletable to more players as they find the temple/Tyrionic parts of the faction more to their liking. I consider myself lucky as the Alarith is very likely going to always be my jam in terms of the Lumineth. I can understand that not being the case for others. I don't think I would have started this faction if one of the other temples was chosen instead, though; I think I would still started when the Alarith released. I think this is likely going to be the case for others too. With maybe the exception of those who just want updated high elves. I got the feeling that's not going to happen. There are just too many high elves count-as/proxy models available both within and without the GW bubble. I get the feeling GW doesn't really want to pursue that not quite saturated market as the competition won't get the margins they want. But I certainly don't know.

And now you know of at least one person that wouldn't have collected them if they didn't have the helmets they have. So I guess hypothetically GW loss a player in your experience. However, my internet experience had been it takes a good dozen hypothetical players or more to equal one actually player. Since it is really easy say you'll do something more or less anonymously to a group of mostly strangers. The spoiler has most of my army. So I think GW will be okay. Especially since head swaps are among the easiest kitbashing elements possible. So I serious truly believe those two people weren't that interested in collecting them. So forgive me if I doubt the validity of your claim. It sounds far more like the usual internet sound and fury trying to add more weight to their complaints than truth.

I don't know what kind of Chaos Warriors you been encountering, but mine right hard Pathers*. Two Wounds, 4+ Save re-rolled most of the game, often a 6+ Feel No Pain, 5+ vs. Mortal Wounds and Immunity to Battleshock. I have had entire armies of DoK and KO rained down all the shooting they could muster only to find they managed all of 4-7 warriors removed. Which I think isn't half bad when you consider the sheer amount of damage they had to facetank. Chaos Warriors might hit like they got wooden swords, but if anything; they are almost too tough. I no longer dream of brutalizing my opponent's army with my S2D and focus on the attrition game with Chaos Warriors being my broad and thick anvil in my army. It generally works out pretty good save against something like OBR who just play the attrition game better than S2D. *As in Path to Glory

It is true that the Warcry S2D cultists could be better in AoS. That said, I have found them to not be entirely worthless. As mentioned Untamed Beasts can cover a lot of range if they get the charge. I also find Iron Golems to be a slightly cheaper alternative to static objective camping than Chaos Warriors while being able to take a hit as long as they didn't move. The Splintered Fang are an okay sacrifice battery for Cabalists. The Unmade could be useful pinning a unit down if you could keep them alive long enough for that to matter. Which is probably the biggest issue with Warcry Cultists: You pretty much lose handfuls of them to everything and they don't pull their weight in points almost ever. As someone that primarily plays Ravagers S2D I find the Warcry cultists to be quite reasonable for a CP when I can spare it. Which I think better illustrates a cost for them. Warcry cultists are fine when they only cost 50pts (as in the cost of buying an extra CP) and have built in Reserves/Outflank rules. I am even okay with them not having the ability to take Marks then. Which works fine as they technically haven't truly started the Path to Glory quite yet. The problem is that the Battletomb want a player to pay 70 points for them. Which isn't as good of a savings compared to what Chaos Warriors even bring for twenty more points let alone Marauders the faction's Battleline and therefor at least a few are required in a list. I think they would be fair more attractive of an option if they were 50pts. If that isn't enough, I think giving them innate Reserves/Outflank rules would especially make them worthwhile. I kinda want them to always have Reserves/Outflank, but that isn't as valuable across the board to all types of cults. The cults that reserves/outflank don't help aren't exactly the strongest already. They don't even need to be Battleline, just something that doesn't sting as much when I am scooping up dozens of them off the table.

In terms of Warcry and all its add-ons, I can compare it to my time with Kill Team. I started playing the latest version of Kill Team basically every week from Novemeber 2018 to about March 2020 (thanks Covid). Because of that duration of playing I essentially became the Kill Team facilitator at my FLGS. Kill Team has the core rulebook, Elites (which includes subfaction traits and additional units), Commanders (Leaders/HQ units), Arena (a very slightly different game but basically the same) and the 2020 Annual/White Dwarf for SoB and Daemons ( FAQ/Errata and new factions). When prospective players approach me to ask what our group uses and what points level we play I tell them that we typically use core + elites at 125 pts. And we tend not to bother with rosters (Kill Team has a sideboard built in) but if that player wants to use one they are free to. When it comes to teaching games it usually just involves the core rules and 100pt teams. Our group usually completely skips the Scouting Phase as a matter of it generally being a waste of time (I tell all new players we can include if they what, but I going to take disarm traps which counters the only really useful option). For brand new, haven't played a miniatures wargame I also turn off stratagem except maybe CP re-rolls for my opponent (so they kinda know they are there) while 'forgetting' I have CP myself. Against regular players in my Kill Team group I typically expect a game of core + elites at 125pts. However, I also bring a 200pt Commanders list since some of the players do occasionally enjoy playing that version. I also suppose it would be possible someone could bring Arena (which does have fundamental rule differences) which I would also not have that much of an issue to play as well. Well, as long as no player is expecting fully optimized kill teams or hardcore competition from me. Which is fine. I don't have much of an issue losing a game of Kill Team in 17minutes. And yes, I did lose (not concede, I loss) a game that quickly before (stupid Deathwatch😄). Only once did I have an issue, and that was from a competitive Arena player coming back to regular Kill Team with a skew list that didn't work as well outside of Arena. The small changes in the rules (and the constant Missouri, i.e. Show Me, of those differences) made the game a huge unfun slog. Even then, it was less about rules and more about their need to win at the cost of fun (for their opponent and suspect themselves if they didn't win). For Warcry, I am kinda interested in playing it as I like skirmish games a little more than full army games. Kill Team has grown a little stale after a few hundred games. I have the Warcry starter which I bought for to setup another Kill Team board with its terrain and use the cultists in my Slaves to Darkness army. In fact, I have a most of the Warcry cultists for my S2D. I don't have any rules save what was in the Warcry starter though. So potentially the Grand Alliance: Chaos book would be of much use to me. At the same time, I highly doubt I would pick up GA: Order just for my Lumineth. Skirmish games are far, far...far more easy to toggle on and off options since it is very easy for the players to bring more models that they would be allowed to field. I totally get some players getting a little flustered having to shape and craft their force on the fly meet the dimensions of a game once all the options are nailed down. Especially GW players who seem to want 3/4 game already decided before they start. However, I have no issue tailor each game to the options each player likes best. In fact, I kinda like the think-on-your-feet challenge it creates. I also don't think gaming groups are nearly as fluid as the internet sometimes makes it out to be. Sure people come and go, but at pace typically less than the rules for GW games change. I think as long both parties are being actually friendly and willing to compromise, a far better gaming experience is gleamed putting in the things each side likes and taking out the things they don't than sticking with the off-the-shelf version. Again, chances are by next year there's a good chance that any GW game can be changed enough that it doesn't matter.

I wanna see two big men with big... chests and big muscles, bumping meat. That’s why I’m here. That’s why I watched wrestling as a kid. You want your five star matches? You want your 30 minute classics? Not me. Big meaty men slapping meat. That’s what I want.