New scrolls for Dark Elves (pic heavy)

[Daeron]

Here you go... For those who don't have the app, or access to it. Once they are up on the GW website, I'll be removing these.

[Amboadine]

Thanks for posting Daeron.
Will take another look at AoS now we have some new updates.
Still hoping for some models.

[Shadowspite]

Thanks, Daeron!

One thing I didn't really appreciate until now: most of our character models are now obsolete. No more sorceresses on dark steeds, cold ones or dark pegasi. No more manticores. No dreadlords except on dragons. No masters at all. No BSBs. Most of the cool centrepiece conversions I've done or am currently working on for my army are now unusable in pure WYSIWYG games (which likely means unusable at my local GW store). I guess my variously mounted sorceresses could be used as warlocks, but that's about it (and I don't have five of them, so even that would mean having to buy more models to make a legal unit).

It's clear now that any options for which GW are not currently selling a WYSIWYG model are no longer going to have official rules. I'm forced to admit that Darkprincess was right about one thing: GW just plain do not want us to do conversions any more. They want us to be tethered to their whims about which models will be available. Every dreadlord rides a dragon, because that's the only dreadlord model GW sells now. Assassins lose their ranged attack because the only official GW assassin model that remains has no visible ranged weapons. Every fleetmaster wields a cutlass and a murderhook, because those are the weapons the official GW fleetmaster model has (now that the Lokhir model is being discontinued). The GW sorceress on foot model has a staff, so every sorceress on foot must have a staff. You want something different, even just a different weapon option? You have to wait until GW releases that specific option, because only then will there be the rules to make it a legal option.

This is giving me serious second thoughts about getting into AoS, or indeed buying any more GW products at all. Converting unique models is my primary reason for being involved in this hobby, and it's clear GW has set out deliberately to discourage that. In other words, it seems they are telling me flat-out that they do not want me as a customer.

[Darkprincess]

This is giving me serious second thoughts about getting into AoS, or indeed buying any more GW products at all. Converting unique models is my primary reason for being involved in this hobby, and it's clear GW has set out deliberately to discourage that. In other words, it seems they are telling me flat-out that they do not want me as a customer.

Agreed 100%

I've noticed also that GW seems to be discouraging all the flexibility that made this hobby what it is (or was, before they screwed it all up), so that anyone letting themselves get sucked in to AoS will essentially be playing a cookie-cutter army which, quite frankly, seems instantly boring to me. I do feel for all those people who've invested vast amounts of time and money into this only to have the rug pulled from under them by a company that just doesn't care about its own customers

As for myself, well I was never going to buy into this AoS thing anyway - the murder of the fluff saw to that even before I got back into the hobby, but for those people who embraced the changes in the hope that it would lead to something new and exciting, there must be an overwhelming sense of betrayal

The writing's on the wall - GW doesn't like fantasy. It doesn't make them enough money, and they'd prefer if we all played 40K. Warhammer Fantasy was around for almost 30 years - I'd be surprised if AoS lasts for 3. It might be cheaper to get into than WFB, but then so is 40K and even if you don't like 40K, you at least have to admit that the fluff and rules make a lot more sense than AoS and in any case, that's where GW are making most of their profits anyway.

I predict that in a couple of years, GW will quietly phase out AoS, just as they have with all their specialist games (some of which - Mordheim, for example - were among the best products they ever released).

So it's 40K or bust for the future I suppose...

I can't ever see myself playing it though - sure I'll use 40K minis for conversions and stuff, as I always have done, but IMO you can't beat good, old-fashioned WFB, 6th Edition (though 7th was kind of OK too)

So WFB 6th and Mordheim for me. What everybody else will do is less than clear. 40K seems to be more popular with younger players, whereas fantasy apeals more to the veterans (yes I know that we can all point to exceptions to this generalisation, but I think it holds true for the most part).

AoS is just a massive disappointment on so many levels - the fluff is terrible and poorly conceived (GW should go back to ripping off other peoples' ideas because they badly suck at trying to be original), the models (that I've seen so far) have very little appeal (I like the bows on the Judicators but they'd still look better on elves) and the rules are at best rather inane and at worst downright embarrassing. Come on GW, bring back WFB - even if you don't want to release models for it, at least acknowledge the fact that you had a perfectly good product there and continue to support the rules so that people can still play it in store if they want to. Don't abandon your long time fans as you try to turn an engaging hobby into a throwaway toy...

[Daeron]

OK.. I'm gonna need a deep breath and before I dive into that one step at a time

It's easy to give in to the doom and gloom. Don't. Focus on the game and what you want, then adjust your strategy to gaming accordingly.

Old Models are not invalidated.
The Dreadlord on foot, on cold one, on dark steed, the sorceress on cold one, pegasus etc. They ALL have a warscroll. They didn't get a new one but the scrolls are still on the site and in the app. I didn't include them here, because... they are exactly the same as before.
For the time being they haven't been transitioned to the new subfactions, presumably because they are phasing out the models from their production line. They are on last chance to buy, after all. It could be they make a return. It could be they never return. We don't know that. I like to think some will, some won't.

Change is nothing new, and will always occur
Of course, over time, more changes will occur and the new game will grow ever more divergent from the old game. This isn't different from how it always has been in classic Warhammer. People used to mix 6th ed or 7th ed rules with 8th ed Warhammer. Cult of Pleasure arrived in 6th, never made a return later on. Some people still played it, depending on the local community. One army may have been top notch in one edition, and could prove weak or not even legal in another edition. Even then people would complain that "the new cool" had better rules. That wasn't always true ( Scourgerunner anyone?) but it's true to an extent.
As long as GW is "supporting" a game, they will keep changing the game. Change drives the community, and drives sales.

I don't want to criticize you personally for this, but the community is very hypocritical about change. On one hand, they never want anything to change. But if nothing changes, they'll complain about lack of support and claim the game is dead. They'll hiss at new models like it's a threat to their own collection, but they'll whine if no new models are released.
Just look at WFB8th ed as an easy example. That ruleset is available to anyone and is as stable as it can get. Yet the community would rather blame GW for killing it, than playing the game with the armies they have. I'm sorry, I'm just not buying this argument. Well, end of rant against that.

As long as the game is supposed to sell models, it will evolve and change over time. Actually, as long as any modern game is kept alive, it's kept alive through change.

Keeping the old Aesthetic of Dark Elves
How these new scrolls merge with your existing collection depends heavily on your collection and the local community. The Dark Elves army, as it used to be, exists in PDF and is free to download. If you want your army with similar aesthetics within the AoS game, then that PDF is your ruleset. I'd recommend you'd talk to your (GW?) store manager. The GW one in Brussels is incredibly supportive and IMO as good as they come. He even allowed 8th ed for a long time after AoS started. I haven't asked if 8th is still played, but I'm guessing it is. He knows 9th Age, and as an ETC player I think it's likely he supports it. I'd bet that he permits the old PDF to be used as long as you plan to play Dark Elves as an army.

Time of transition
There is little left to doubt that the aesthetic and composition will change over time. Models will get replaced. Sub factions may get expanded on and become a new army on their own. Take the Darkling Covens. 6th-7th edition players can probably field such a sub-faction. Fans of the Cult of Khaine in 8th can probably field the Daughters of Khaine without a problem. Corsair fans can probably rejoice as a sub faction specialised on Corsairs.
For now, these sub factions don't seem to introduce new models. In time some probably will. AoS is still in a state of transition, converting old to new. But I wouldn't cling on to this transition too much like a one-off. I'd bet that change will be more continuous. It's probable that changes will occur more frequently than once every 5 years, but it will be more gradual. AoS will confront us with change more often, but smaller steps at a time.

Over time, some players will reach their tipping point, where they like the expansion of one subfaction and buy the few extensions to their collection. This is a process that will be less sudden than edition changes used to be, but it will happen piecemeal. Over time, old factions will become less popular (like the Cult of Pleasure?) and some will stick to it like a hardcore fan.

But time is perhaps all you need. Do you plan to buy ANY miniatures at all in the coming, say... 2 years? Then it's likely you'll find a collection that pleases you within that time-frame. Meanwhile you can play your collection as it is, and over time you may find one sub faction so much fun you'd like to build a specialized force around it. Who knows?

I do believe the old Dark Elves will fade, but only over time. And during that time, there will be plenty of new toys to add to the collection.

Synergy of abilities isn't everything
Although the old Dark Elves as a singular, united force may fade over time, there is nothing stopping you from playing them together. You can still field Witch (A)Elves and Executioners. There is no hard rule denying you can do that, like WFB had. There is a loss of synergy between the forces, if you use the new scrolls. But then that synergy never was extremely powerful in our army. Most of the synergy came from how each unit played.
The biggest loss, is perhaps the command abilities but even when I deploy my Bloodbound (a very synergetic army) I find myself splitting the army in small synergetic groups. This is achievable with the sub factions as well.

So, I don't see the old army as invalidated or even "weak". For now, at least.

What's your stance towards change, then pick a game
Everytime AoS introduces any kind of change, there's a bunch of people (often the same ones) going "That's it! I'm out!". I think a dozen have probably pledged their retirement of anything GW a dozen times.

I get that change isn't for everyone, or sometimes comes at an uncomfortable pace. I don't like the pace with which Games of Thrones kills characters. I grew tired of the pace of World of Warcraft. I grew tired of the pace of the roleplay in that game. I struggled to keep up with the pace of WFB as well, partly because there were so many models to make and paint with every change

Finding something that offers just the right pace of change to keep your interest while it doesn't discomfort you may be difficult... If not impossible. All change introduces some level of discomfort.
I don't mean to sound negative at all, there.

Let's take a step back and try to rationalize how much change is comfortable for you. For me, I need roughly 6 months just to keep up with model range changes. I just got around finishing the core of my Bloodbound army and now I can comfortably expand on it every once in a while.
And I'd like a year for rules changes. In a few months I could do with a few changes for my Bloodbound or Dark Elves. If GW would change the armies more frequently, I'll have to skip a few changes every once in a while to stay comfortable.

Every time that distance between me and the meta becomes too big to sustain, I'll have to wonder if I want to go the distance or not.

Conversions
You're a little bit right and a whole lot of wrong, no offence. If you check the facebook and twitter groups on Age of Sigmar (heck even Google+) then conversions are as popular, if not more popular than ever. Headswaps, body swaps, weapon swaps.. People are creating whole units and characters out of bits and pieces collected from various kits. If you need proof, I'll gladly spam a topic with more pictures than your browser can handle.

But there is a distinction with WFB: there is no -need- for conversions... If you stay with the most current scrolls. We needed conversions just to have a character on a peg. We needed conversions just to have a Sorceress with a blade. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think more people took the crappy chillblade of old because they wanted rules to reflect their favourite conversion over people who converted a sorceress with a blade "because chillblade was so awesome on a Sorceress!". And yet the latter happened as well.
Because no weapon options exist for Sorceresses in AoS, I find that they are more accepting of conversions, actually. As long as it looks like a Sorceress, it's fine. There is no discussion about what the weapon represents. This wouldn't be the same in WFB.

For combat characters, there are so many equipment options that few combinations are left out. Take the Dreadlord for example:
- Sword and Shield
- 2 Swords
- Lance and Shield
- Sword and crossbow
- Lance and crossbow
What are we missing?

That said, my local GW store does ask WYSIWYG units. So, changing your dark elf bleakswords into executioners better be a very clear conversion. But then, was that so different with WFB? It depended on the local meta, which is as it is now.

There is less customization. And customization used to be a source of inspiration for conversions. That has been reduced. The game changed. I do think it has changed how conversions are handled.
On one hand, they are less "required". On the other hand, it seems people adopted a more liberal approach to conversions because there are fewer customization options and so fewer rules conflicts.

Specialist Games

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/11/ ... firms.html
It's coming back. And bringing back some old-timers.

[Daeron]

Just for the record, I absolutely love WFB. Some of my buddies want to stick with WFB, for now at least, and I gladly keep my army squared for just that reason. We played 8th just 2 weeks ago and it was so much fun! I'd like to add 9th to the list of games I'm playing, but found nobody to join me locally yet.
I have no objection, whatsoever, to sticking with the old. I would encourage it for anyone who's interested and I'd like to help build a living WFB community. If I can support it, feel free to ask! I'd gladly help. I'd love to see the WFB forum come to life once more!

But I am going to ask not to turn every AOS topic in the AOS forum into a whole reiteration of why you don't like AoS. We get it. We got it 10 posts ago. There are going to be a whole lot of changes in AoS every month until the end of the year, and then a whole lot more every month from then on. And there will be discussion about it. So please, let us keep the focus on the game and not everyone's personal peeve with GW or AoS.

[Shadowspite]

There are two potential problems with your "use the old warscrolls" advice. First is that the faction keywords make them incompatible with all the new stuff. The old Master with Battle Standard warscroll only gives a benefit to Exiles units, not Darkling Coven, Daughters of Khaine or Scourge Privateers units. Unless I use the old warscrolls for everything, her Banner of Murder (the entire in-game reason for fielding the model) does nothing. Second, unless GW have seriously lightened up since I worked there, it is very unlikely that my local store is going to allow us to keep using the old warscrolls now that there are 'updated' ones.

That said, I'm not throwing all my toys out of the pram just yet. I'm just having second thoughts about AoS. Up until now, my reaction to AoS was overwhelmingly positive. Now there's a big potential negative to weigh against it. But I've not written it off like DP has done (largely because, unlike her, I actually mostly like the new fluff). I still strongly favour sticking with AoS over moving to 9th Age or KoW. My choice is really between AoS or abandoning the hobby altogether, which is probably why I sound so upset.

In 'informal' games, I will probably just use the old warscrolls for things that haven't been updated and ask my opponent if it's OK to change the 'Exiles' keyword to the appropriate subfaction. For example, my BSB is my fleetmaster's second-in-command and lover, and so logically should share his 'Scourge Privateers' subfaction. I'm fine with her banner not affecting my witch elves (who are reluctant passengers on my black ark rather than loyal crew), as long as it still affects my other melee troops (corsairs and kharibdyss). Likewise, my mounted sorceresses would swap the 'Exiles' keyword for the 'Darkling Coven' keyword so that they can sacrifice my darkshards to boost their spells, as well as giving the extra Ld boost to their standards.

I just strongly suspect that doing that isn't going to be kosher in my local GW store. And I won't pretend not to be pissed off that most of the conversions I've spent the last couple of months working on are now likely to require special dispensation from the venue/opponent in order for me to use them in the game. I know GW hasn't done this deliberately to frustrate me - it's just thoughtlessness, not deliberate maliciousness. But that doesn't make it any the less frustrating or demotivating.

Links to evidence that GW are encouraging conversions would be appreciated. I had a quick look at the AoS Facebook page and couldn't see anything like that.

I agree with you about the lack of weapon options actually making conversions more hassle-free in the sense that, as long as the unit/character type is obvious, it doesn't matter what oddly-shaped piece of sharp metal he/she is waving about. I don't think that applies to mounts, though. A sorceress on a dark steed is still very clearly not a sorceress on foot. And due to the way targeting of characters works now, having a big cavalry model with the stats of an infantry model is problematic.

I'm still probably 70% pro-AoS at this point. It's just that before today I was about 95% positive.

[Daeron]

Well I don't know to what extent GW encourages conversions as much as allows them and let the modellers come up with their own stuff and ideas.
Some quick picks from one of the amazing painters on G+:
http://s16.postimg.org/bcp4nr3v9/Beastl ... arer_1.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/721a0ok0l/Blood_Warriors_2.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/7ud4rd2z9/Doombull_5.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/7laynp0t1/Dracosphinx_1.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/j1hdlqez9/Ghorgon_1.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/b2hm4ep91/Grail_ ... yros_1.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/ayj7aeudx/IMG_2605.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/3u1e1dn4l/IMG_2610.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/tzsn3x3kl/IMG_2612.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/91mh5u3px/IMG_2626.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/q8j2hlpw5/IMG_2627.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/h20rubknp/IMG_2631.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/w0j6oqzpx/Khalida_s_Sphinx_2.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/41tmbmnh1/King_L ... oeur_2.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/t6kmp1mxh/Korgor ... shed_1.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/q29ys9651/Total_ ... Army_8.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/ngzsqzrdh/Zeti_1.jpg

Some quick picks from the facebook group.

http://s13.postimg.org/ut4bzuy2f/627_15 ... 4560_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/iz16fyp6f/996699 ... 8622_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/pqrlite5z/117367 ... 9647_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/hmew0c2d3/145488 ... 5924_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/uf3009dyv/193545 ... 5570_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/z3nl96sjb/105838 ... 4741_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/pzp68qqyf/121057 ... 6850_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/ianqja12v/122433 ... 5550_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/abnz1ybcn/122955 ... 7225_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/iotnwmak7/129203 ... 6931_n.jpg
http://s13.postimg.org/7len4renr/129312 ... 4813_n.jpg

[Daeron]

There are two potential problems with your "use the old warscrolls" advice. First is that the faction keywords make them incompatible with all the new stuff. The old Master with Battle Standard warscroll only gives a benefit to Exiles units, not Darkling Coven, Daughters of Khaine or Scourge Privateers units. Unless I use the old warscrolls for everything, her Banner of Murder (the entire in-game reason for fielding the model) does nothing. Second, unless GW have seriously lightened up since I worked there, it is very unlikely that my local store is going to allow us to keep using the old warscrolls now that there are 'updated' ones.

Indeed. That is a potential issue. It kind of depends on the local meta, how they approach this. You can go dark elves with the old PDF and have your army as it is now, in AoS. At least for non tournament games that should be fine. If you want to play cutting edge, then you can use the new scrolls as well, but without the synergies and all the problems with it. Cutting edge always meant adapting to the latest meta, so this is a different ballgame altogether, that never was about "not going with the change". Still, it feels like there are gaps now.

My guess is that, in time, the old PDF will continue to fade away. If not from the website, then at least in importance. I'd give it a year or so, before more active steps are taken to remove it or metas start to grumble at the old PDFs. I think this speed of transition will be defined by new releases. Every time a subfaction gets a revamp or expansion, that pressure to transition will increase. On the bright side, that means there will be nice releases all the way up until that moment, and perhaps one that strikes your fancy.

Wouldn't you buy the few new models missing in your collection to complete it, knowing that doing so will give you a great army for AoS and your old collection for a WFB game like the old days? I would.

I started a bloodbound army in AoS so I don't feel pressured, having another army to fall back on. Most of all, it's really selling the concept of a subfaction focused army. It's very thematic and fun. I wouldn't mind having a few focused around Dark Elves. If I dig back at my old army list files, I was already doing that in how I built my army lists. I tended to focus on one style or city at a time.
Although this splintering of our army without releases feels a bit incomplete, I bet it will improve over time. Personally, I think they should have waited until they actually had a release... IE: only give the Darkling Coven new rules when there actually was a Darkling Coven release.
But that might have invalidated the Grand Alliance: Order book even quicker.

Or perhaps the new releases are just around the corner (<6 months away).

[Shadowspite]

Well I don't know to what extent GW encourages conversions as much as allows them and let the modellers come up with their own stuff and ideas.
Some quick picks from one of the amazing painters on G+:

Thanks for taking the time to do that, Daeron. I kinda feel like we're talking past each other, though. I didn't mean to imply that GW were somehow disallowing conversions, just that it feels like some of their design decisions for AoS were made with the intent of encouraging all players to stay tethered strictly to those specific models GW decides to produce, to ensure that the only legal in-game options are those GW can sell us specific models for. That's in contrast to how they used to actively encourage conversions and originality. But I realise this is all very subjective. I certainly can't prove that GW are deliberately trying to discourage conversions, so it was a bit unfair of me to demand evidence that they still actively encourage them.

Anyway, that's enough of me whining.

Interesting thing I noticed: the new Daughters of Khaine warscrolls still have Khaine as an entity that can be prayed to and who actively decides to grant prayers or punish unworthy supplicants. I was not expecting that. I thought Khaine would either stay dead (but with fanatical followers who refuse to accept he's dead) or be in a state similar to 40K, where he's shattered and essentially powerless except when an aspect warrior sacrifices himself to become Khaine's avatar (an event that is supposed to be incredibly rare, like once per millennium per craftworld rare). But it seems instead that he's just as capable of influencing the world as he was before the End Times.

I'm not sure how to feel about that. On the one hand, I'm glad Khaine hasn't either gone away entirely or changed beyond recognition. And I'm damn glad the witch elves still worship him and haven't been changed to generic bloodthirsty cultists or followers of some other god entirely. On the other hand, I think it would have been more interesting if there were some indication that the events of the End Times have changed Khaine. If he was somehow sundered from his divinity and reliant on his mortal worshippers to work his will in the world, perhaps while hunting down the broken shards of him to reassemble into a true god. That would have opened up some potential conflicts with Tyrion and Malerion, both of whom might actually be (or be believed to be) living shards of Khaine due to having once been avatars of the god. Maybe the hags would (secretly or otherwise) want to sacrifice them to bring Khaine back properly? You could do a whole narrative campaign around that.

None of what's in the new warscrolls necessarily indicates that's not the case, of course. But the feeling I'm left with when reading them is that 'dying' during the End Times didn't affect Khaine at all, and may even have been retconned somehow.

EDIT: To clarify, I guess what I would have done (if I were the GW designer writing the DE warscrolls) is change the Daughters of Khaine warscrolls as follows. First, only the Cauldron would explicitly have powers that rely on Khaine. Death Hag 'prayers' would instead be described as magical abilities innate to the death hag, even if that meant making them wizards. The Cauldron's magical abilities would be explicitly described as the effects of "a fragment of the dead god Khaine" sealed up inside the big avatar-looking statue.

[Daeron]

That's an interesting take on it. I'm kind of holding my breath about the fluff. Note that the word Druchii was removed from all the scrolls (at least, I think), but not words like Khaine or Draich. I think that, for AoS they'll stick to some basic concepts, which are defined visually as much as conceptually. We'll be the traitorous bunch, the ones with plots within plots, the ones with cloak and dagger, assassins and murderers, wielders of dark magic and bloody sacrifices. But little will be left of the old fluff, I'm afraid. I expect more isolated pockets of Elven civilisation, all somewhat caught between Malerion, embodiment of Shadow, and Tyrion, embodiment of Light.

[Calisson]

Note that the word Druchii was removed from all the scrolls (at least, I think), but not words like Khaine or Draich.

Confirmed. The word "druchii" only used to describe the spearmen's spears and the swordsmen's swords in the first AoS ruleset. Both replaced now by "Darkling".

So Darkling is the new Druchii.

And "Druchii.net" will soon lose all remaining link to an official GW meaning, but that's another issue.

[Shadowspite]

'Darkling' is pretty much what the word 'Druchii' was supposed to mean in the official fluff anyway (it's the one bit of official language fluff I disregarded for the DLG).

What GW seem to be doing (and I think this explains some of the otherwise strange choices in how our units got factionalized) is taking a 'models first' approach. The visual appearance of the models dictates the fluff (including which faction they belong to), rather than the other way around.

So executioners have left the Khainite faction because they don't look like witch elves, and have joined the Darkling Covens because that's where the other DE infantry (whom they do strongly resemble) reside. Conversely, medusas and SoS have joined the Khainites because they do fit in visually with witch elves. Any fluff reasons that might be in the book explaining these factions are just post hoc rationalizations for these primarily aesthetic choices. The idea, I think, is to create collections of models that look like they belong together and only then defining that as a faction/army.

Assassins and dark riders are stuck together in one mini-faction because, visually, they don't really fit with any of the others. Heck, they actually resemble some of the wood elf range more than they do other DEs. I actually wouldn't have been surprised if they'd been put in the Wanderers faction (like the Sisters of Avelorn).

It's not a bad way to do things, IMO, but it's very different from what came before.

[Shadowspite]

I just had an idea that might solve the sorceress on dark steed issue. Aelves are aelves. Which means the Eldritch Council faction warscrolls are just as valid to represent DE models as the Darkling Coven ones. And the EC archmages still have the option to ride horses (according to DakkaDakka anyway - can you confirm this Daeron?). So, count the sorceresses as archmages. Convert some executioners to be DE-looking 'swordmasters' to give them infantry support. An armoured sorceress to count as a 'loremaster'. Not sure what 'drakeseers' are, but that sounds like something that could be converted from DE bits. Could be a fun little project.

On a similar theme, do Wanderer spellweavers get a mounted option in their new warscroll?

[Daeron]

'Darkling' is pretty much what the word 'Druchii' was supposed to mean in the official fluff anyway (it's the one bit of official language fluff I disregarded for the DLG).

What GW seem to be doing (and I think this explains some of the otherwise strange choices in how our units got factionalized) is taking a 'models first' approach. The visual appearance of the models dictates the fluff (including which faction they belong to), rather than the other way around.

So executioners have left the Khainite faction because they don't look like witch elves, and have joined the Darkling Covens because that's where the other DE infantry (whom they do strongly resemble) reside. Conversely, medusas and SoS have joined the Khainites because they do fit in visually with witch elves. Any fluff reasons that might be in the book explaining these factions are just post hoc rationalizations for these primarily aesthetic choices. The idea, I think, is to create collections of models that look like they belong together and only then defining that as a faction/army.

Assassins and dark riders are stuck together in one mini-faction because, visually, they don't really fit with any of the others. Heck, they actually resemble some of the wood elf range more than they do other DEs. I actually wouldn't have been surprised if they'd been put in the Wanderers faction (like the Sisters of Avelorn).

It's not a bad way to do things, IMO, but it's very different from what came before.

Hmm...!

This inspires me to make either a video or write a wall of text. What format is more preferable? I'll go for the video.
Although I agree that GW is going for highly stylised, visually paired sub factions, what makes you think they chose these factions only after they created the aesthetics of the models?

Just something to wrap your brains around. Apart from the Scourgerunner chariot, look what army section all the new units and aesthetics are coming from.

[Shadowspite]

what makes you think they chose these factions only after they created the aesthetics of the models?

Are you suggesting that some of the 8th edition models were actually designed with the intention of fitting them into particular AoS subfactions? I seriously doubt that. I know that AoS itself must have been being planned back then, but it seems very unlikely that any real thought had been put into specific subfactions that long ago. I suspect that these multiple Aelven subfactions were only decided very recently, certainly after the free warscroll compendia were done.

Or have I misunderstood what you're asking?

Apart from the Scourgerunner chariot, look what army section all the new units and aesthetics are coming from.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Remember that I've been away for a number of years, so to me all the current DE plastics are equally 'new'.

Of the units that didn't exist at all before my hiatus (i.e. in 6th edition), 3 are in the Scourge Privateers and 4 are in Daughters of Khaine. Arguably monsters like the kharibdyss existed in the fluff. And the fleetmaster existed as a character concept you could make by giving your lord or hero a SDC. So I guess other than the scourgerunner chariot, all the really totally conceptually new units are in DoK. Is that what you were getting at?

To be honest, though, the current executioners (and to a lesser degree the 3 core infantry types) are so different from the previous versions that they feel just as aesthetically 'new' and 'different' to me as SoS or medusas.

[Daeron]

Well, I ramble about it for an hour long in a vid, where I scrutinize every little detail. But the gist of it is, that they may not have known the details of each sub faction but probably already knew they were going for smaller, visually themed sub factions with bigger centre pieces and a dual kit assemblies.
Whatever was produced in 8th, had to adhere to that concept. Perhaps they designed a new Hydra and the management decided "it had to be a dual kit, had to be bigger, and the alternative model had to visually match one of the themes of the army". The jump to making a Kharibdys alternative suddenly isn't so surprising anymore.

I think they decide where they take the army visually (model wise) first and adjust the fluff later on, using the creativity of the author. This would explain the oddities of the BWS and Warlocks. It's almost as if someone said "there will be a Medusa, and there will be warlocks, make them fit the story". Lo and behold, a dark elf equivalent of the Greek medusa appears. The BWS is aligned with Ghrond. The Warlocks align with Slaneesh.
As AoS is being fleshed out, the decision to pair the BWS and Warlocks with Khaine is made and the author of the End Times Khaine book (Gav Thorpe) is informed. Suddenly the BWS and the Warlocks are aligned with Khaine and Hellebron. That's not an easy switch in alliance

All the 8th ed releases of the dark elves show a visual match for this AoS approach, with the story being refitted as it developed. Aside from the Scourgerunner chariot, all these new alternative builds are placed in the rare section of the book. It's almost as if you have your basic Dark Elf army with an addendum of new units. I think it's because these new units were (dual-kit) built with the outline of AoS designs in mind, and they had to fit these units in 8th ed. They were the least balanced and polished units in both fluff and rules.

From a management point of view, it makes sense. You don't want to make the jump AoS with only your starter box to go with. That would have demanded way too much production bandwidth to fix it. Gav Thorpe's blog mentioned that the AoS project had already started in 7th. At least at some level, preparations were made.

I think the High Elves might make a stronger case, when suddenly new creatures and units pop out of nowhere, that visually almost divided the army in sub factions, the Phoenixes specifially. And this sub faction was already employed during the End Times.

We know "reasonably" sure that the 6th ed army book of the Dark Elves had no influence from the End Times. If we look at the models, we can see that they have stronger character indivudually, while adhering to some common concepts across the entire army. A 6th ed army could look very coherently even when making a very odd mix of units. The 8th ed models seem to have stronger separations between the themes.

[Shadowspite]

Yeah, your video makes the case pretty well, I think.

One thing I will disagree with you on, though, is your assertion that Gav said AoS was being planned back during 7th edition. I think you have misread what he wrote in his blog. He said that AoS had the codename 'Stanley', and that WHFB 7th edition had the codename 'Cucumber'. 'Cucumber' wasn't AoS. He uses the word 'it' somewhat unclearly, so I can see how the misconception arose. But he did say explicitly that AoS was always 'Stanley'.

Now, it is possible (though unlikely IMO) that AoS was being planned as long ago as the 7th edition era, but Gav didn't actually say that.

EDIT: Gav actually clarified this in the comments below that blog entry. 'Cucumber' was indeed 7th edition, nothing to do with AoS.

[Daeron]

Hmm, you could be quite right... Sad times! It was a fun little nugget I was hoping to have more meaning that it did.

[Shadowspite]

I still think the rest of your theory is pretty sound. The warlocks in particular really do look like the models were designed to fit in with witch elves and SoS. And the SoS always looked more like cult troops than gladiators to me. Even if the other DE subfactions were only defined recently, the Daughters of Khaine do look like they were in somebody's mind pretty far back.

I wonder if the original fluff/concept for the medusas, SoS and warlocks was written before AoS was planned, but the models (and art) were done after, hence the seeming mismatch?

[Calisson]

The good thing is that now, we know how future Aelves will look like: just like the recent range of Elfs!

I recall reading one year ago that future ranges would be made of factions with 3-4 basic troops, permanently on shelves for sale, plus series of limited series, buy while it lasts.
What I did not understand at that time was that DE would encompass no less than 5 factions!
If this stands true, we should get often short-span goodies, which would be in the same tone as our troops! Great!!

[Shadowspite]

More stuff from Grand Alliance: Order, via the War of Sigmar blog. This time, DE subfaction fluff:

https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/599

Interesting things:

Khaine might actually be dead after all. The Daughters of Khaine can hear his voice, constantly calling for more slaughter (maybe to bring him back to true godhood?), but to everyone else he's a myth.

Death hags are described as 'warrior-queens' rather than priestesses.

Warlocks are male attendants of the cult, not slaves or hirelings.

The Daughters of Khaine (witch elves) are allies of the Darkling Covens (sorceresses), not enemies/cult rivals as they were in the old setting.

Other factions based in Azyr, like the Free Peoples, will happily ally with the Daughters of Khaine because they're just that good in a fight. They're tolerated in Azyrheim even with their horrible blood rituals. I.e. they're not some secret cult persecuted by witch hunters, but a valued part of Sigmar's armies.

The subfactions we've seen all seem to be aelves who fled to Azyr when Chaos invaded the other Mortal Realms. These former-DEs are not the aelves who still dwell in Ulgu. Those are the Shadowkin, who might be very different.

Azyr sounds a lot like the Astral Sea from 4th edition D&D. Which means the Scourge Privateers are sort of Githyanki...

Black Arks (or Shadow Arks) still exist.

Corsairs don't enslave humans, etc. any more (which explains the renaming of their 'Ravagers and Slavers' ability). They now only hunt monsters, which they sell to wizards in Azyr.

The Darkling Covens are those aelven magic-uders who refused to join the Eldritch Council (the main aelven magic-user faction in Azyr). They include male as well as female spellcasters, but most covens are led by charismatic females.

Black guard are free-willed, but most of the other DC troops are effectively mind-controlled slaves.

Unlike the DoK, the sorceresses of the DC pursue their own agendas and only ally with the other Order forces when it fits their secret plans.

The Order Serpentis created hydras and drakespawn (cold ones) by sorcerously manipulating dragon eggs. This is stolen shamelessly from D&D, of course. Originally, they all rode proper dragons, but they are too rare now. They seem to have inherited the 'martial pride and discipline' themes of the old DE.

Aelves (unlike humans and duardin) value and respect the assassin's craft.

Shadowblade assassins can shapeshift (at least their faces).

They seem to have been a gift to Sigmar from Malerion, but nobody knows for sure. Some function as a sort of secret police in Azyr, killing traitors and Chaos cultists. This possibly also extends to dark riders, since they're also part of the SB faction. Arguably, this returns them to their historical roots as oprichniki expies, but with Sigmar rather than Malekith as their Ivan the Terrible.

Seems like Azyrheim isn't the fluffy-cloud-heaven we thought, and that Sigmar isn't the simple white-hat-goody-two-shoes the earlier AoS fluff might have implied. Like the Emperor in 40K, he's willing to tolerate and even employ morally murky (and even flat-out evil) methods to fight Chaos.

[Daeron]

Very interesting. I quite like the fluff I read on that page you linked. Sure, it's new and very different from the old fluff, but there are recurring patterns of the past.

[Amboadine]

Interesting read, need to take time to adapt my mind around the new concepts.

[Shadowspite]

I'm mostly positive about it.

Perhaps the biggest conceptual change is that there is no history of hatred between the aelven factions, or between them and the duardin. There is a reason for that. Azyr had a civil war, caused by Chaos cultists. When Sigmar finally put his foot down, he didn't just destroy the cultists, he also destroyed anyone who could not put aside their grievances and agree to work together in common cause from then on.

One thing I'm not so happy about is that the Darkling Covens fluff relies a bit too much on old sexist tropes. I think it would have been better without the implication that their leaders are mostly female because female spellcasters are more, um... 'bewitching'. I find the concept of a bunch of fully-armoured dudes enslaved by the 'supernatural charisma' of a near-naked sorceress to be a bit... iffy. Works much better if you ignore that and assume that both the soldiers and the spellcasting leaders could be of either gender, IMO.

Incidentally, unlike Khaine, Asuryan seems to be dead and gone. The Phoenix Temples worship/follow the Ur-Phoenix, a (female) godbeast. There's no mention at all in their fluff of Asuryan.

The two (non-Chaos) pantheons of elemental-themed godbeasts and Sigmar's gods of Order (Tyrion, Alarielle, Malerion et al) also remind me of the D&D 4th edition cosmology. Which is no bad thing, as far as I'm concerned.