Neil Arthur Hotep

I have been thinking about how to balance shooting for under the assumption that we still want ranged-focussed armies to be viable, but don't want the playstyle to be dominant. Plus, there are some armies around that basically have no shooting, so we have to take this uneven distribution of the mechanic into account as well. Currently, this uneven distribution makes it hard for core rule changes to help balance the mechanic. Something like a simultaneous, alternating shooting phase does nothing for armies that don't have access to shooting. To the contrary, depending on the implementation (like if you could shoot back on your opponent's shooting phase), it would just make things worse for them. For what it's worth, I think there are some restrictions that made shooting weaker than melee that have been in the game for a long time, they were just not part of the core rules: Shooting units did less damage than melee units on average (even if they get to shoot and attack in melee in the same turn). Shooting range was usually low enough so that a fast melee unit would be able to charge a shooting unit on their turn even from max range. If you had long range shooting, those pieces were immobile, fairly weak and frequently had a minimum range. I think for a moment last year we had an army that could do strong shooting, but was not oppressive: Cities of Sigmar. If you compare Cities shooting to current top shooting armies, the difference in power becomes pretty clear. Cities shooting is mostly mid range, around 18". Anything above that is either no rend or artillery. Definitely no 30" mortal wound bombs. Cities still has some of the strongest shooting in Irondrakes, but they you need to jump through a lot of hoops to make them work. You need to keep buff heroes around them and not make a move with them maximize to their damage, need to use Soulscream Bridge to get them where they need to be and need to properly screen them to prevent a counter charge. Compare that to Lumineth Sentinels: Basically self-sufficient (they need magic to buff their moral wound output, but they can cast the spell themself), and can reliably take out a 5 wound buff hero turn 1 from anywhere on the board with their 30" range, and for a fairly small investment. Even if you are not planning to spam them, a unit can basically go into any army an be great value. This is why I think fixing shooting is hard. I think the problem is not with the core shooting mechanics, but that we have several overtuned armies that can put out too much damage at too high ranges. Which is way harder to fix. I for one am hoping for a bunch of warscroll rewrites, but it seems like GW is going the opposite way and just giving everyone good shooting.

It's possible if Gravelords are a revamp of Legions of Nagash. The duel box could then be Lumineth vs. Legions with the new Vampire Lord as the box hero. The Gravelord troops could be skeleton focussed or partially new sculpts for old units (Blood Knights, for example).

If it is I am fully prepared to put my money where my mouth is. I don't think you get all the rules, though, just points and composition rules updates. At least as far as I can tell. That it is so difficult to find out what the Azyr subscription does is kind of a problem in it's own right. As far as I can tell you still have to buy all your books separately, though.

I wish GW would introduce a subscription service where you get access to the digital versions of all rules material for, like, a tenner a month. It does not even have to be all books. All rules would be enough for me. That way, they could print battletomes and general's handbooks as frequently as they wanted, and players would not have to feel bad about not getting enough use out of their books. And there would finally be a way to read up on other faction's rules without breaking the bank or having to piece them together from a bunch of previews and wikis.

Wouldn't it be nice if that kind of rebalancing was possible? But can you imagine the (very justified) anger from people who would have their 500 Dollaridoo army obsoleted a little more than a year after release? "Sowwy guys uwu! We did an oopsie! Now throw your old army in the trash and buy all these new models instead!" I'm all for getting comfortable with the transience of rules in AoS, but that would be a bit much even for me. That would be following the BR: Morathi model, where they had a Daughters/Hedonites box. If we think Gravelords will release like Hedonites, in between BR: Teclis and BR III, then I don't think a duel box is unlikely.

You have to decide between a build that gets pleasure from receiving pain, or one that gets it from causing it, basically

This is speculation going off the other warscroll, but if they get 14" movement and run and charge at +1 to both, that gives you a threat range of 26" inches for basically free. Alpha strike capability that does not rely on command points is pretty strong.

I think points will probably make or break him, since he does not seem to have any special synergies from what we know right now. But that does not have to be bad, since it also means that he does not require any support. Sub 200 points he should be playable. Comparing him to other beatstick characters, I think he's definitely much better than Kurdoss because of his mobility. I think he's about as good as the Light of Eltharion.

I also like that it's really thematic, because it encourages Slaanesh players to sadistically keep opponents alive and while killing them slowly over several turns. Do we know the reach of their ranged attack? Althought even if it's 9", they have a threat range of, like, 24" or so easily.

Unless I missed something, he also does not get a command ability or benefit other units in any other way. Which, personally, I am fine with. You don't usually want named characters as your general anyway. Sigvald's rules make him feel more like a selfish duellist type, who shows up to join your Slaanesh army as he pleases, does his own thing, and then leaves whenever he's had enough. Which I really think is a great role for him.

Sigvald looks pretty fun! I like how they pulled off designing him in such a way that he's good against stuff that is normally hard to kill, but kind of bad against easy to kill chaff. I'd love to see more of this, and less units that are just good against everything.

If Kurnothi get their own book, GW could also go for a Legions of Nagash/Nighthaunt situation, where some or all Wanderers models gain the Kurnothi keyword per errata. Just because we want Wanderes to be playable in Kurnoth Huntlords does not mean they can't stay usable in Cities.

Probably not in the near future, if at all. We are already waiting for too much stuff to come out that is way more likely. In order of significance/likelyhood, so far we are still waiting for: Soulblight Gravelords Tyrionic Lumineth Kurnothi Umbraneth Order of Azyr Whatever Grungni is up to Grotbag Scuttlers Chaos Dwarves And even if GW decided to unexpectedly introduce chaos halflings into the game, it probably would not be as a full faction. An underworlds or warcry warband, maybe, but all underworlds warbands are already planned out for this year.

There is a pattern with the releases of GW rule books. Vince Venturella did a video about it. Basically, they usually go in three books cycles. The first book makes big, sweeping changes, and the following one or two books refine the newly established formula. I would suspect AoS 3 to be more of a refinement than a big paradigm shift. If nothing else, new editions are a way to make core rules changes. I personally believe that's their best use, too. Core rules should probably be treated as fairly constant for the life span of an edition, just so that the game can mature and that we can actually get a good idea of what works and what does not.

I know, I know. Always assume the worst with GW. But really, I think announcing "This is an exciting moment for Warhammer Age of Sigmar, with lore that pushes the storyline forward, updated rules, and plenty of new models on the horizon. Every major faction will be getting some attention." (direct quote) and then later going "We never said anything about attention in the form of rules or models for every faction!" does not even make sense as a marketing ploy. It's not like it would just make people go "Ah, GW, you lovable scamp! Got us on the technicality again!". It would just make people angry and disappointed that GW tries to build hype without a payoff. So, even though it's not explicitly stated that all factions will at least get rules, I still read it as such. And I don't think that's unreasonable at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

The only thing that makes me doubt this is their initial announcement that every faction will be touched on over the course of Broken Realms. Assuming that means not just narratively, three books might not be enough space to do this. We know this so far: The average Broken Realms book touches on five factions, but factions can repeat (Cities). It looks like in between BR books, there will likely be bigger updates to one faction (Hedonites, likely Gravelords), which we should probably count. That means we will get about six factions per book. Since we have 24 factions, that would indicate four books. However, it's possible that we get three books about the elven gods (as was originally indicated) and then go right into AoS 3.0 with a new Destruction vs. Order starter box an a final book that focusses on all the Destruction armies. That could make a release of the next edition of AoS close the start of GW's fiscal year possible.

Hard to make predicitons either way. The last few big releases (Hedonites and Lumineth wave 2) had very few rumour engine teasers. The leaked Gravelords Vampire was not teased at all. At the same time, historically Quest miniatures have partially found their way into AoS proper. And GW does not seem to be shy about linking Cursed City to Gravelords in their latest article. I, personally, still stand by my original prediction of a fairly large Soulblight release, even though the majority of Death rumour engines have been solved by Cursed City.

This shield from the new year's video seems to belong to the skeleton on the left: The broken part of the shield matches, and as the model rotates in the video you can see the spear shaft.

This is kind of what I was talking about in my opening post: I don't think we should view using points as the sole defining characteristic of matched play (and conversely should not view the absence of points as the definitive of narrative play, or even open play). I think it's fair to say that if you don't use points, you are probably not playing matched play. But I also think there is more to matched play as a game mode. For example, using symmetrical battleplans. And, if we want to contrast the game mode with narrative play, the fact that each battle takes place in isolation. I personally see myself as mostly playing narrative games. I very rarely roll for random battleplans for example. Usually, for people I regularly play with, we decide on a battleplan ahead of time, taking the outcome of the previous battle into consideration. Sometimes they are just the symmetrical matched play plans, but they can frequently be asymmetrical scenarios like sieges or ambushes as well. Usually, these games will still be at point parity, but often the two sides have different victory conditions. Really, there is no reason that narrative and matched play should be though of as opposites. More likely, you are going to be using matched play mechanics to shape your narrative games. Matched play is probably the more restrictive format, where you generally come to the table with the expectation that both players should have the same points and goals throughout the battle. But of course, that's also just what we decided. Matched play could mainly consist of asymmetrical battleplans if that's what we/GW wanted. But there is little reason to assume that narrative play should be restricted to not include those features characteristic of matched play. If anything, narrative seems like the more permissive format, where you get to do anything you are allowed in matched play and more. I think by default, we all usually want games where each side has an about equal chance of winning if they play smart, so I don't think it's surprising that most people play their narrative games at matched play point parity. Finally, as for open play not really being it's own game mode, I think that's pretty fair. I see the "support" of open play as similar to the inclusion of "rule zero" in role playing games: An official endorsement that it's your game and you can play it however you like. Of course, nobody needs to give you that permission in the first place. But it's good to have it explicit, so that it is part of the shared expectations of what is the "right" way to play the game.

Since you mention the other skeletons: Their banner interestingly does not match the one from the Rumour Engine. I think that means we can expect a second banner bearer sculpt. EDIT: The skeleton with the shield from the new year's preview is probably the Ulfenwatch skeleton on the left. The shield seems to be broken in the same place, the colours match, and you can see the spear shaft in the video as the model rotates. That just leaves the axe zombie.

I am very happy so far with what we have seen of Cursed City. All models so far have been hits for me. Just from a model perspective, the game is shaping up really well. Super exciting! I think it's fairly likely that Cursed City gives us some indication of what Gravelords will be like. In the latest article on Warhammer Community, they hotlinked a mention of the Soulblight aristocrats of Ulfenkarn to the Gravelords Vampire Lord. While that is a tenuous connection on it's own, I think it's another piece of evidence that Cursed City is part of the effort to build up Grave Lords. The question is what will cross over into AoS proper. So far, we know of the Gravekeeper, who looks to be a Deadwalkers hero. I think he, along with whatever zombies will surely be revealed in the future, are good candidates for inclusion into Gravelords. Deadwalkers are currently not a model range that can stand on it's own, with it's old models and no heroes. The Deathrattle Captain and Ulfenwatch are harder to place. The skeletons seem to fall somewhere in between Skeleton Warriors and Grave Guard, as far as their armaments are concerned. But I don't think the Deathrattle subfaction can really make use of light, medium and heavy infantry. Conceivably, the Ulfenwatch might replace either Skeletons or Grave Guard, but there is little reason to do so, since these kits are still good. Watch Captain Halgrim, as well, does not seem like a replacement for the Wight King: The Wight King kit is still good apart from the square base, and Halgrim seems to be a weaker type of non-sentient Deathrattle from his narrative. Here are some scenarios I think are possible: The Ulfenwatch and Hargrim are just cool alternative skeleton sculpts, but don't become their own thing in Gravelords and don't replace any kits. I think this is the most likely. The Ulfenwatch plus Halgrim get treated like a Warcry or Underworlds warband and get a collective warscroll. Hargrim takes the place the Wight King currently has, as a minor buff hero for Deathrattle. The Wight King warscroll gets rewritten to be a more significant, more powerful hero. That last option in particular is the only way I see Hargrim become a standalone hero: The Wight King is currently a discount Vampire Lord. Since Hargrim is a discount Wight King, there is really no role he could play unless the current Wight King is changed. I would not be opposed to having two Deathrattle hero options, though. I think having both a Deathrattle Captain and Wight King could work. As for the rest of the yet-to-be-revealed Overlords of Ulfenkarn, they seem to follow the factions that currently make up LoN: The Gravekeeper for Deadwalkers, the Deathrattle Captain for Deathrattle, the vampire for Soulblight and the priest for Deathmages. The odd one out is the big bad, the Wolf, who seems poised to introduce a new type of wolf-shapeshifting vampires.

After the new previews we can now confirm that these rumour engines are Cursed City related: The reasoning goes like this: Watch Captain Halgrim stands on a pillar with a distinctive chevron pattern: That same pattern is seen in the rumour engine with the paw and the raven with the key. And if the raven is Cursed City, so is the rat.

Sure, it's somewhat tenuous, but it wouldn't be a prediction if we only took into account 100% confirmed info, now would it 😎

Thank you Mr. Skeltal! I like those guys a lot. That's some cool looking skeletons with a lot of personality. I especially like that they avoided the temptation to give them cartoony evil skeleton faces, like you see so often on other fantasy minatures. From the article, the most intersting thing to me is this line: Hoping to receive the ‘gift’ of the Soulblight curse, Oleksander Halgrim joined the traitorous purge of Ulfenkarn’s nobility. Along with the fact that Soulblight curse links to the leaked Vampire Lord model. So we know that the leadership of Ulfenkarn is Soulblight (not surprising, but good to see confirmation) and that GW is willing to link Cursed City to the Gravelords army. If that is right, it seems like Deathrattle will have a place in Gravelords after all.

I agree. I think in general slow-growing an AoS army is the more fun way to get into the game. I see people that buy a huge amount of models right from the start and then get overwhelmed by all the building and painting all the time. I was one of those people at some point. Pitching a narrative approach where you can grow your army by a box of models per month would be a very good way to make the game more beginner friendly. This ties into the game design idea of different player profiles. For those who don't know, there exists a system of player profiles that tries to capture different things players want from a game. It divides players into Timmies, Johnnies and Spikes (although this is just a rough categorization, most players will have aspects of all three). Timmies most value interesting experiences in games. They often like to see big, impressive stuff happening. They like big damage and huge, stompy monsters. Sons of Behemat and Mawtribes are Timmy armies. Johnnies most value self-expression. They like complex rules and combos. Although these players might also value the artistic side of AoS and creative list building. Cities of Sigmar is a Johnny army. Spikes most value winning. They like powerful rules and armies. Pre-nerf Petrifex is a very spikey army. I believe, by it's nature, AoS is most suited for Johnny players, which would match up with the idea of exploring AoS. The quickly changing metagame and difficulty of switching armies (both in terms of time and money) makes the game less attractive for those that mainly care about winning. However, the possibility of not just expressing your self through the cool lists and interactions you found, but also through your conversions and paint jobs should make the game more attractive to Johnnies. That's also one of the big benefits I see from making the different game modes official. You see this kind of discussion in all kinds of game. Even non-competitive ones like DnD: Some people believe you are playing that game wrong if you give your character the best stats for their class (Fighter with 18 STR, 16 CON). Others believe the exact opposite, they think you are doing things wrong if you purposefully build your character non-optimally. An official statement along the lines of "You can do both and not do anything wrong. It depends on the kind of game you want." really works wonders in these situations. What I still think we are missing in AoS is the recognition that playing matched play games at less than 100% full power is valid. In my opinion, AoS has pretty good balance when we look at lists at a power level of 7 to 8 out of 10. Balance at the very top of competitive play is wonky. But at a not hyper-optimized level (some pet unit choices, some rule of cool, but still trying to win), I think you can generally have good games between pretty much any two armies. But this requires a play group that can self-regulate, where more competitive players hold back to a degree and more casual players put in more effort than just bringing one of each unit in the army. Personally, that kind of power level is the sweet spot for me. You can still explore interesting interactions in the rules that exist and build fun and flavourful lists that even feel pretty strong. But you avoid scenarios where games are just unwinnable from the start for one player.