RamsesIII

While I'm hoping Warcry will retain most of its freedom when it comes to warband rosters, I'd be quite happy if they assumed the Kill Team model for releasing new teams. One new set of models (be it a fully new unit or a new sculpt for an existing one) and one existing set with a new upgrade sprue to expand the options and customizability could also do wonders for AOS (especially for the most neglected armies).

The leaks are very exciting, I quite like what I've seen so far- and it looks like Beasts of Chaos won't be souped into Slaves to Darkness for now! (Yes, it seemed unlikely with the recent White Dwarf material, but you never know...) One thing I'm curious about is if they'll give the daemon prince any bits for an ascended beastman, since lorewise the chaos gods can no longer take them for granted as pawns. Regardless, I hope the kit has a good amount of options, especially with how popular Total War Warhammer III's customizable daemon prince is.

If I'm not mistaken these were supposed to be ungors, which does highlight how little justice this (admittedly pretty) model does to the sheer size of a shaggoth. Though that doesn't mean GW couldn't simply choose to have a different creature on the shaggoth of course. But I doubt these are meant to be BoC related, they don't seem to match current BoC aesthetic and I'm not expecting GW to do a huge refresh for the beastmen to join this new aesthetic. We'll see!

https://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/002-v-1-2021-22-half-year-report-Final-IR.pdf

I'd argue The Old World rumors (particularly those focused around the miniatures) can be fairly relevant to AoS discussions, as the persistence of various WHFB sculpts in AoS rosters could be affected by the decision to actively support cross-game minis or not, both in terms of updating the models and even keeping them as a unit in the army's battletome. It's the rules and lore that are built around the selling of miniatures and not the other way around, after all.

Maybe I'm not being creative enough but having zero model overlap sounds completely implausible to me- not in a "no way GW would do that" but in a "how many resources can they reasonably dedicate to a side game, even if it's given more importance than some of the others?" Even just taking the classic Empire, Orcs&Goblins, Dwarfs and Chaos, they'd still need so many models for a more or less full roster, and there's no space marine overlap to rely on like in HH. Sounds like a very odd decision to make considering how many WHFB models are still being sold for AOS, I'd understand having that as a long term goal (we'll rely on these models at first but we intend to make new ones for everything as the game continues) but short term... it's also a bit of an odd move in a game that's supposed to capitalize on that sweet nostalgia of the old players even if they'd still want to bring in new people. They're really going to have shared daemon models between 40k and AOS but not for the side game based on the setting that also used those models? Sure, it's possible that Chaos will be purely based on the mortal side initially, but I imagine they'd want to include a series mainstay like daemons in one form or another.

I think that measuring a race's in-game popularity based on their campaign completion rate is somewhat flawed. Skaven, despite being considered one of the strongest races in the game, have some of the hardest campaign completion requirements in Mortal Empires (which is the most commonly played gamemode by those who own both game 1 and 2). Not only is it difficult to expand to all the capitals required due to the food limitations, but obtaining near-full Skaven corruption in so many regions can be tricky, definitely less simple than the Tomb Kings' campaign objectives (granted, recent growth and public order changes have made their campaign start tougher recently).

Feeling very "whelmed" by the reveal. I like the look of the new masked Fyreslayers hero, I don't dislike the IDK hero, but really I'm not a fan of either army so the box was never for me. I do feel like this isn't what those armies need from a purely external, "concept and aesthetic"-based standpoint. My issue with Fyreslayers is the lack of visual variety and this doesn't solve that, and while I think IDK feel a little more "complete" in that area I don't see how their new hero expands or fills any aesthetic void in the army. Meh for me as someone who isn't a fan of theirs, and it looks like it'll be meh for many who are. Not the end of the world for me, might be a nice box for many, though I'm hoping the next AOS news won't take too long to come and will feel less lacking in content.

Lord Kroak has to be the best for me, easily. Super clever in its composition and just plain spectacular.

To play devil's advocate, while I don't think it does so as effectively as Dawn of War for example, the first Space Marine game does a decent job at showing the dystopian side of the Imperium of Mankind, both in the hypocrisy of some of its members in authority and the tough life of imperial citizens even when you exclude the threat of invasion. I've also seen people speculate that Titus (the main guy in the trailer) passing through and not acknowledging the guardsman might hint that he's more war-weary and emotionally disconnected than in the first game (where he was pretty nice guy for a space marine... stern and mission-focused, but appreciative if the guard's efforts). Overall I absolutely agree that GW could display the darker side of the Imperium more often in marketing and social media, but I don't think the Space Marine 2 trailer is that bad. Keep in mind the trailer announced a game that many people thought dead and that probably played its role in the "heroic" feel of it, like a "look who's back!" kind of deal, plus it does kinda suit Titus despite the nature of the empire he fights for.

By them looking like they come from different cultures, I don't mean that their overall design as a group could pass for whatever culture you choose, rather that each individual model feels like it could come from a separate army/culture (in life) from the rest of the skeletons in the box, due to the variety of designs in their armour (and it being more incomplete). This gives them more of an "improvised army made from the many corpses you find in your travels" look rather than "all these skeletons come from the same particular civilization/location in the map".

I liked the previous skeleton warriors better. Don't get me wrong, I think the new ones make for a "better" miniature, but I think their uniform armoured look worked better for Cursed City, which takes place in a very specific location where the skeletons are explicitly raised from the old guard of Ulfenkarn. The previous skeletons looked slightly more cartoonish, but their armour pieces (especially the helmets) felt like they could come from different cultures to an extent, which worked better for the idea of a necromancer travelling the land and raising more dead from their defeated foes. It works very well for narrative-oriented games with a necromancer who isn't in one place (or simply makes forces out of failed invasions to their domain). Plus I feel like that variety gives you more to work with when building 2 boxes of 10, compared to the newer box of 20. The old and the new each have their appeal though!

Great Clean One confirmed for the Nurgle battletome?

Not going to lie I'm glad that rumour about one of the battleforces being an Orruk Warclans box with Maw-krusha included was fake because I don't know if I could have resisted it. With that concern gone I've happily bought the remaining local Broken Realms Atra'zan's Blazing Cavalcade box, so full of colours and horrors.

To be fair, the new greater daemon designs are also present in 40k, so they might not be perceived as AoS or End Times material. They also made the distinction that it won't be set in the End Times, but didn't use the "won't feature stuff from x" wording that they used with Age of Sigmar, so units and designs from the End Times are still fair play.