Infeston

The Mortarch of Grief is reaaaly reaally good. Nobody ever say again that the Thundertusk range ability is unfair. ? The Mortarch of Grief can dish out even more mortal wounds. But the model is also named. So there is no risk of this model to be on the battlefield multiple times. I am no Nighthaunt player, but I will propably buy the model, because I really like it. Even though many people don't like the design. I don't own the book, but what are the point values of this model?

Wasn't it disproved that they are resurrected Skaven? As far as I know these are not resurrected Skaven but instead the reborn souls of mass murderers or assasins. I don't where I had read this. But maybe I might be wrong. ? Sorry for double posting. But I still always fail at posting two quotes in one post.

Jeah I had hoped for new Gutbuster allegiance abilities. But maybe they release a battletome later? ? Ah damn. It is getting old always saying this. But hopefully they have adjusted the point costs for Maneaters in the new GHB2018. This is the one thing that was necesarry since GHB2016. They have never adjusted the points since then. It doesn't make sense that they cost 220 points. You can't even fit them in an ally slot.

Hey. Wait a moment. I will listen to the video and write a transcript down for you. Wait a moment. Edit: @RuneBrush was faster! ?

As a Destruction player I am so envious of death. ? But you Death players have really deserved this. You had to wait for so long to get something new. I am really happy for all of you Death players. I always felt a connection to all the Death players who had never gotten anything new. I hope you Death players are also satisfied with what you got. ?

Soul Wars reveal is up: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/06/05/soul-wars-announced/

Firebelly was also my first thought.

New faction focus is up: Flash-eater Courts https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/27/27th-may-faction-focus-flesh-eater-courtsgw-homepage-post-3/ I am really hoping they will also preview more Destruction factions like Beastclaw Raiders. At the moment it is just Order, Chaos, Death and Ironjawz. I am a little bit scared the only big changes they did for Destruction was Ironjawz. It would be really sad if GW sees Destruction as only Gobbos and Orruks now.

Jeah. Sadly seems like it.

But even though it is at the start of the battle it still seems unfair to me. Even if it is only at the beginning of the game it is still an unfair advantage compared to other armies with no access to warscroll battalions.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/18/18th-may-rules-preview-command-abilities-and-command-pointsgw-homepage-post-2/ It seems like the amount of command points you get for using command abilities is now tied to the amount of battalions you use in your game. I have to say I am really disappointed by this change. Why not give every player the same amount of command points every turn? Now armies with access to a lot of battalions will be at advantage. I really liked the concept of command points as I have heard of it. But after this article I am seriously disappointed.

Jeah. I am also a bit bummed, because I had hoped for a Moonclan Goblins teaser for this weekend. But on the other hand Death got no new Age of Sigmar model release, while we got Ironjawz. So I think it was their turn before Destruction got anything. But don't understand me wrong. I am also a bit sad that we got nothing Destruction related. I am not even that big of a fan of Ironjawz and Goblins and really really want an Ogor release. But I don't think this will ever happen in the near future. Maybe never. So I decided to root for the Gobbos, because for me they are more interesting and will propably have a more versatile playstile than Ironjawz.

I am happy for all the Death players who had to wait for new models for such a long time. I always felt a connection to all the Death brothers as someone playing Destruction, because they were also always neglected. I hope you Death players also like the new models. ?

Also there is a FAQ for questions about the new edition: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/WarhammerAgeOfSigmar-QA.pdf

I have to say that GW took a lot of the criticism of the community and put it all in the new edition. I really like the new GW. It seems like they catered to all the complaints the community has made the last years. Double turn unfair? Check Shooting out of combat? Check No new death models? Check More magic? Check Too much Stormcast? Ohhh. Okey. Maybe not here, but the models definitely look cooler than most of the Stormcast. Props to GW. If they will now also release new Destruction models one day, I am completely satisfied. Also my initial fear that the rules might get too complex, may be inappropriate if you look at this quote from the warhamer community article I hope it still is easier to get into than before and that you don't have to read 40 pages of core rules to get into the game.

Nice that they removed shooting out of combat. I really like this option. And now every hero can use command abilities? Also I don't want to be a killjoy here, because everyone is so excited, but I don't like that the core rules get more complex and that they are no longer 4 pages long. Also the inclusion of Warhammer AoS Command Dice gives me bad vibes. I really liked that you could get into Age of Sgimar very fast in comparison to other board games. I have to say that I never played a game of warhammer fantasy, because it was always too much to read for me. I like a small core rule set and complex additional rules to add. I hope that we don't go back to times, where you had to read a giant book before you get started.

Squig was also the first thing that came to my mind as I saw the picture. But I think it could be a different kind of squig than the ones at the moment. The spore squig on the fungoid cave shaman also looks very different to the current existing squigs. I would really like if GW designs more AOSified squigs, maybe with a lot of mutations or different forms (like a poison squig, bomb squig, flying squig etc.) I think squigs with different forms and functions with somewhat random and uncontrollable abilities would fit the AOS-aesthetic very well. As I have seen all the beautifully designed Idoneth Deepkin models I also wish for such a diversity in the new monsters of Destruction. For me that is what is Destruction about. A lot of different giant and terrifying primal monsters with some humanoids trying to tame them. If it is no squig it most likely is a Destruction monster, because Destruction monsters very often have very big mouths (Maw-Krusha (it's even in the name) or Stonehorn for example).

I really like this thread. After reading some posts I directly got motivated to play some open play battles. The problem is that I very often experienced that people want to play with very strict matched play rules and aren't always open for open play battles, sadly. Also people that concentrate too much on the wording of some abilties and use it for their advantage (where I would say "this might be the way the rule is written but its clearly not the way the rules was intended"). So the point with the trust issues from the thread is true. But I still fear that people might dismiss armies which have no matched play points or won't play against them, because they only see "Matched play" armies as legitimate armies.

But what if there is no faction under the new ones which fits me. At the moment the only new army in Destruction is Ironjawz. We will also propably get a Goblin faction. But for me the only faction which is somewhat unique in Age of Sigmar for Destruction is Beastclaw Raiders and Gutbusters. Every fantasy setting has Goblins and Orks. But not many fantasy setting have an organized Ogre army with frostmounts. In most of the fantasy settings Ogres are just dumb giant fat humanoids who are mostly alone. If GW releases a new Ogre army or still pushes Beastclaw Raiders I am propably All-In. But like @Rogue Explorator said before, we don't really know what will get scrapped and what not. Also some people mentioned that you could still play these armies even without points. While this may be true I have the feeling that matched play often defines how the game is played. And everything outside of matched play is often ignored by most of the players. For example, there are so many battle plans and scenarios which could be played. But most of the time people only play the 6 battle plans from the GHB instead of playing the other battleplans. So if there some units don't have any points you legitimize that people can tell you "This army is no longer valid. I won't play against this"

They could simply and directly tell us which armys will be phased out or is planned to be phased out in the future. That would be transparent. Then you as a player would know which things you could still invest in. For example I wouldn't buy any more Ogor models if I would know that they plan on removing them from the setting. Or put them into Legends. I want to play an army which will be supported in the future. But I have the feeling that GW doesn't tells us this directly, because they still want to sell their old kits and to maintain the illusion that they might be relevant in the future so the people will buy their stuff. Sometimes the lack of transparency often has a special purpose.

I also have to say that I am getting bad vibes from this. I was always waiting for a Gutbusters battletome and hoped that they will continue to support Ogors in the new AoS setting. Now I fear that they will turn Gutbusters and eventually also Beastclaw Raiders into Legend factions, because they were not exclusively designed for AoS. I only started with Age of Sigmar, because I could still play my old army (I know i can still do it after that, but tbh it will be hard to get an opponent who will fight an old and discontinued army without any points). I hope that I am wrong with that. But I fear that this might happen...

Never had a comment sum up my feelings about the Deepkin as well as yours. This was exactly what I felt during the reveal. I had expected a bit more creativity. The models I like the most are the guy with the octopus, the scythebearer and the guy on the gaint seahorse (not the guy especially but the seahorse). I also find the rest of the models a bit underwhelming. The eels and the sharks also look kinda derpy. The turtle looks also cool but for me it is also based too much on a real turtle. The Mathlann avatar also looks too aelvish for me. I think I would like him better if he didn't have such a "perfect" face or would have looked lesser "humanoid" But you pretty much sum up my feelings with your comment. Nevertheless they look cool. But I would have expected more creative experiments. ;-) But the style of the Deepkin fit Order. If GW would have designed them the way I would have wished for they propably would have been part of Destruction.

In my opinion GW is moving away from a completely matched play approach and focus mainly on open and narrative play. In open and narrative play battleline and limitations do not exist. Matched play seems to be still supported, so that you can still play at tournaments. But the main focus is on open play battles. Matched play rules are more of an addition to the existing rules. But if you look at the last releases they were mostly focussed on the setting and the narrative. Also the non-matched play battleplans and the Time of War rules seem to be better designed and suited for interesting battles. I have to say I am very happy with a stronger focus on the setting and the narrative than to just cater to the tournament players. I think AoS is a game which can be played at tournaments but seems to be better suited for open play and narrative play. The best battles that I have played on the board weren't often fair and always involved a lot of random events occuring on the board. I also think we as players shouldn't see matched play as the only viable way to play. And I think GW also tries to encourage narrative and open play more by releasing start collecting boxes with no battleline choices.

Sounds good for me. :-) Maybe also new squig models? ;-) Would be cool to get squigs which look similar to the spore squiq on the base of the fungoid-cave shaman, but maybe bigger. I would like that.

@Ryan Taylor You can't compare it this way. Before there were no alliances and there were just single armies. Also it does look different if you compare factors such as unit sizes etc. But now GW has decided to divide the forces in 4 alliances, which all take part in the campaigns and affect the outcomes of the battle. It is a different state the game is in now. The optimal ratio would be 25% for every grand alliance. Also what excatly did you compare? Did you compare how many books the alliances had? Or how many units?