GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

[Killer Angel]

I don't see any bit of Tomb Kings in this ugly ass release.

the Kopesh weapon?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I do, for the reasons mentioned previously. The hieroglyphs in the middle of the shields and on carapaces have an Egyptian feel, and the roster with clean skeletal infantry, cavalry and monsters is more reminiscent of the Tomb Kings army list than the Vampire Counts/Legions of Nagash one, which has all the vile walking corpses and stuff.

The glyphs don't really give me an Egyptian / Tomb Kings vibe. As for the unit types, yes both TK and these ugly things have some similar unit types, but the aesthetics couldn't be further from one another.

It would almost be like saying that Dwarfs have legs, and these guys have legs, so they are a bit like dwarfs. Of course these Bonereaper models and TK are both undead, so they obviously share that major similarity, but that is about it.

Still would rather have these chaps than Sigmarines

That isn't saying much.

or Nighthaunt all the time.

Nighthaunt are much nicer than these.

the Kopesh weapon?

Are you referring to this dreadnought arm?

 

[Killer Angel]

Are you referring to this dreadnought arm?
View attachment 59379

Yes, that's the only thing that vaguely remembers egyptian styled weaponry.
Still different from the equipment of TK models' range.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Yes, that's the only thing that vaguely remembers egyptian styled weaponry.
Still different from the equipment of TK models' range.

The angles and general aesthetic seem very far from anything we'd see from the Tomb Kings. Too bulky and much too armoured.

 

[Killer Angel]

Even on Death forums the reactions are mostly negative.
However, there are people that like them... for the sake of discussion, i will copy & paste a long post that analyzes in a positive way the army's design.




They are definitely goofy & over the top, with silly grins and bumpy knobby bone armor and hats, odd proportions, etc. 'Toyetic' is the word I would use, in that these look like miniatures that know and accept and embrace the fact that miniatures are just 'toys for big kids'. The remind me of He man toys or Army of Darkness or Skeleton Warriors (the cartoon show, not the warhammer unit). The Mortarch reminds me a bit of Mum-ra. The armor design calls to mind nothing so much as Skeletor's fancy gold armor from the end of the live action Masters of the Universe movie. I can see where more serious minded players would really dislike all of that, but personally? I grew up on that stuff, so for me the whole faction looks super nostalgic and just fun as heck.

So Yeah, I really like these. I like their concept & personality maybe a bit more than the models themselves. While I'm maybe a bit of an exception in really liking what GW seems to have been aiming for with these, even I can admit that they're maybe not as idealized a realization of that vision as, say, the Daughters of Khaine or Gloomspites or Nighthaunts were for their respective visions. Even for something self-consciously silly & toyetic, the proportions on the big bone harvesting monster feel off, and the crotch face is maybe a bit much. The noses in general aren't great, and the faces without them look better, imo.

But yeah, overall I really love what we've seen so far. The bishop looking four armed liche in the walking bone throne? That biz is my jam right there. Both the scythy ghosty caster and the bone caster modeled in the process of building a new ossiarch look absolutely fantastic to me. The Mortarch is amazing - though since Arkhan is a native part of this faction I'll probably build around him instead, at least to start. I like all versions of the stalkers we've seen. Probably my favorite version is dual wielding greatswords, but I do really like the heads on the halberd & shield variant. Catapult is great. I love the skeleton in the hamster wheel to winch the arm back - yeah the one bit of that model that I've seen a lot of folks complain about is my favorite part of the model.

I like the infantry and cavalry, but I worry that they'll just be too expensive for me to feasibly field them, especially since the infantry are on 25s or maybe 28s but according to people who saw them definitely not 32s. That implies that they'll actually be a horde unit after all, despite the fluff implying a more elite faction. I could easily see these turning releasing as a 5 man box for $40 with rules that make them only really worth running in multiple units of 30. If that's how they turn out... well, I don't know what I'll do. Maybe there will be a 'Legion of the Necropolis' variant list combining them with other death factions so I can combine the fancy new heroes & elite units with my existing undead battleline units.


It does look like Nagash, Arkhan, and the morghasts will show up as native parts of this army, which is cool. Fingers crossed for fancy new updated warscrolls that get retroactively applied to the existing Legions of Nagash entries. The morghasts especially have really been in need of an update for a while. Age of Sigmar has kind of moved on without them. At this point their stats & abilities fall sadly short of not only their points costs, but their concepts & models as well. We'll see, I guess.


Honestly, right now I'm just hoping that the negative reaction in some corners of the internet are overstated and that these models will actually sell pretty well once they're out, as I would really like GW to return to and expand on the ossiarchs in the future the way the stormcast line has seen multiple release waves. Maybe "Ossiarch Boneriders" for a faster variant incorporating bonemold chariots or an "Ossiarch Bonestorm" shooty variant with archer variants of the infantry and stalkers, plus some variant siege weapons to complement the catapult, like a massive ballista shooting the thigh bones of ancient extinct dragons, on a monstrous, for legged backwards centaur looking bone monster, with the upper torso in the back to draw back the bow?

I don't know, I'm just spit balling. Point is, I love these guys, I'd love to see more of them in the future, and I hope this pile eventually wins over enough players that GW thinks that's something worth pursuing.

 

[Aginor]

I am not as positive about them as that guy, but I see what he means.
Besides that: 5-10% of AoS players liking them is probably already enough for GW to sell a lot of them.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Besides that: 5-10% of AoS players liking them is probably already enough for GW to sell a lot of them.

 

[GuaDan]

Nighthaunt are much nicer than these.
View attachment 59379

The spooky ghost theme behind Nighthaunt is far from interesting, but the model line is rendered deliciously. There is not much going on detail-wise on the minis, yet they look very complete and elegant, and a painted army looks like a beautiful ghastly dance.
The paint scheme suggested from GW is boring though.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Nighthaunt are much nicer than these.

Nighthaunt are one of the least original and most boring armies GW has ever made for AoS. They do nothing to extend beyond the Grim Reaper trope that has been kicking around the fantasy market for donkeys years. The only plus point is GW’s sculpting of them as @GuaDan said, but then GW’s sculpting is pretty much flawless for all the new AoS miniatures now so that isn’t much of an advantage. Even Sigmarines have some more original aspects to them.

 

[Seraphandy]

To be fair, they have added some interesting models/factions recently (IDK and KO) so I'll forgive them for this 80's comic/TV disaster.

 

[Killer Angel]

Nighthaunt are one of the least original and most boring armies GW has ever made for AoS. They do nothing to extend beyond the Grim Reaper trope that has been kicking around the fantasy market for donkeys years.

That depends on what your expectations and hopes were.
I've always loved the "ghost" theme (much more than the zombie and ghouls), so even before the arrival of LoN i was playing with my own ethereal army, composed mostly by spirit hosts, banshees and mortis engine. It was doable, but also very limited, both in choices and in effectiveness.

SO, to me, Nighthaunts it's an old concept that finally can be played in its full potential. The extention of the Grim Reaper trope was exactly what i needed.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

That depends on what your expectations and hopes were.
I've always loved the "ghost" theme (much more than the zombie and ghouls), so even before the arrival of LoN i was playing with my own ethereal army, composed mostly by spirit hosts, banshees and mortis engine. It was doable, but also very limited, both in choices and in effectiveness.

SO, to me, Nighthaunts it's an old concept that finally can be played in its full potential. The extention of the Grim Reaper trope was exactly what i needed.

I don’t mind the ghost theme overall and like you I do prefer them over zombies and ghouls, but I prefer ghosts as spectral humanoids clothed as they were in life, like the Warriors of the Dead from the Lord of the Rings. I like that sort of thing a lot more than the Grim Reaper trope, so much so that if I was forced at gunpoint to collect Nighthaunt, I would have to use the Middle Earth Warriors of the Dead models, because I really don’t think much of the skull-face Grim Reaper Nighthaunt models at all.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

To be fair, they have added some interesting models/factions recently (IDK and KO) so I'll forgive them for this 80's comic/TV disaster.

Indeed, the presence of Fyreslayers, Idoneth Deepkin, Gloomspite Gitz and Kharadron Overlords still stokes enough interest in me to say that AoS at least has got better than it was before and has potential, even though there are still awful elements.

 

[Killer Angel]

I don’t mind the ghost theme overall and like you I do prefer them over zombies and ghouls, but I prefer ghosts as spectral humanoids clothed as they were in life, like the Warriors of the Dead from the Lord of the Rings. I like that sort of thing a lot more than the Grim Reaper trope, so much so that if I was forced at gunpoint to collect Nighthaunt, I would have to use the Middle Earth Warriors of the Dead models, because I really don’t think much of the skull-face Grim Reaper Nighthaunt models at all.

I see your point...

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I see your point...

These, my friend, are ghosts as they should be:

In fact there’s an awesome new plastic King of the Dead miniature coming at some point. Looking forward to seeing him!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Nighthaunt are one of the least original and most boring armies GW has ever made for AoS. They do nothing to extend beyond the Grim Reaper trope that has been kicking around the fantasy market for donkeys years. The only plus point is GW’s sculpting of them as @GuaDan said, but then GW’s sculpting is pretty much flawless for all the new AoS miniatures now so that isn’t much of an advantage. Even Sigmarines have some more original aspects to them.

You throw around the words "original" and "boring" with such vigor. I find that quite surprising coming from a guy who loves and endorses Fyreslayers so much. Aside from the inclusion of an average looking monster, there is nothing original about them. They are simply Slayers, who have been around for decades. In terms of boring, the entire Fyreslayers faction (other than the one average looking monster mentioned above) is pretty much the exact same thing. They have less diversity of design than any other faction. To use your phrase "even Sigmarines have some more original aspects to them".

When I say that Nighthaunt > Ossiarch Bonereapers, I'm talking about the beauty of the sculpts. There is no comparison in terms of aesthetics.

vs.

One is a very unique and interesting sculpt and the other has a little guy sticking out of the crotch of the monster (which I suppose is unique as well but not in a good way). You can chose to like which ever faction you want, but I can tell you that the reception that Nighthaunt received was far more positive. Whether or not you like the theme of Nighthaunt, they were good looking models, while these new Bonereapers are tacky and overdone.

 

[Canas]

Wait, I just had another look at that combine harvester thing, does his tail end in a fist?

 

[Aginor]

Wait, I just had another look at that combine harvester thing, does his tail end in a fist?

Looks like the skeleton foot of some ungulate (maybe a rhino) to me, but yeah, that's a weird choice.

 

[Canas]

I mean, it looks nicely solid to hit stuff with, but why not just give it a metal ball or something then. Now I'm halfway expecting it to start swinging of vines using it's tail.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

You throw around the words "original" and "boring" with such vigor. I find that quite surprising coming from a guy who loves and endorses Fyreslayers so much. Aside from the inclusion of an average looking monster, there is nothing original about them. They are simply Slayers, who have been around for decades. In terms of boring, the entire Fyreslayers faction (other than the one average looking monster mentioned above) is pretty much the exact same thing. They have less diversity of design than any other faction. To use your phrase "even Sigmarines have some more original aspects to them".

The Fyreslayers themselves are not the most original thing in the world, no, but the whole concept of a Slayer is, for GW were the first to think of the idea of a Dwarf who has shaven his hair into a Mohawk, dyed it orange, and then goes off into the wilderness seeking a glorious death. The only things I’ve seen from other fantasy wargames companies that are remotely close to Slayers are either copies of them released specifically to allow players to still be able to buy, make and paint and use some in their games since GW killed Fantasy (in the case of Avatars of War) or versions that bear a similarity to them but are not the same lorewise (in the case of Mantic’s Dwarf Berserkers, who are more like Dwarf versions of Viking berserkers whereas Slayers are more like Celtic Fanatics).

Furthermore, the Fyreslayers are not simply direct carbon copies of Slayers made specifically for AoS - one of the things I like most about them is that they are a development, an evolution, of Slayers from a deranged cult as part of a wider faction into a faction of their own right. They now have a way of life based upon that of the old Dwarfs, while at the same time retaining the Slayer tradition of fighting more aggressively than defensively. So they aren’t the same thing as Slayers at all once you delve beyond the familiar exterior.

Nighthaunt have none of that - they aren’t even an extension of Grim Reapers, they are just AoS Grim Reapers made from discontented souls in Nagash’s underworld. No more, no less. They have no culture or religion, nothing that the Fyreslayers have which set them apart from the old Slayers.

As for the unit diversity, that was the fault of the old GW that killed off Fantasy and brought in AoS, as they wanted to bring in new factions as quickly as possible to try and calm the tide of AoS hate coming from Fantasy player all around the world. All the other First Edition factions have a similar problem. If the Fyreslayers had been released in Second Edition, they would have probably had a lot more unit choice to them, and GW may well give them those new units when they’ve finished giving all factions a tome like they did last year with 8th Edition 40K.

When I say that Nighthaunt > Ossiarch Bonereapers, I'm talking about the beauty of the sculpts. There is no comparison in terms of aesthetics.

vs.

One is a very unique and interesting sculpt and the other has a little guy sticking out of the crotch of the monster (which I suppose is unique as well but not in a good way). You can chose to like which ever faction you want, but I can tell you that the reception that Nighthaunt received was far more positive. Whether or not you like the theme of Nighthaunt, they were good looking models, while these new Bonereapers are tacky and overdone.

To be honest that’s not the best comparison. The skull-faced banshees on Lady Olynder detract from the grace of Olynder herself (who is based on another unoriginal trope that probably stems from Miss Havisham in Great Expectations). The only thing that is really bad about the monster, by contrast, is the skeleton in the crotch, and as I say before, THAT LOOKS AS THOUGH IT CAN BE EASILY REMOVED. You don’t have to have the thing as what it comes as on the box, you can quite easily clip the arms off and probably file the head off or greenstuff over it. Perhaps the banshees on either side of Lady Olynder could have new faces greenstuffed on as well, but then the new faces would stick out more and make their heads look massive.