Wood Elves Rumor Roundup

[Bigred]

+++Possible Wood Elf Hoax Alert+++

Some notes on these Italian pages:
[URL="http://imgur.com/a/ztwXx"]Purported Italian Wood Elves Pages[/URL]

1) The uploader account to imgur is named "salty"
2) The art is very inconsistent with known GW artists and styles. Some is old GW art, while some seems very out of character for GW . At least one has an obvious artist signature on the piece which GW tends to disallow. If its a fan-made set, there are probably lifted pieces of art from places like Deviantart.
3) The pagenumbers are odd. Most WFB armybooks do not get into the unit description pages until the mid 30s. The earlier pages are the introduction and army background.

[MythicKhan]

Highly doubt they're fake. These look plenty real to me: [url]http://m.imgur.com/a/ztwXx[/url]

Especially when you consider we only knew what units were going to be in this release quite recently and this already has them in there in a format so high quality that it would have taken considerable time to knock up.

Edit: Actually Khan, I take that back. Seems pretty unlikely that the rules for the sorceror are on page 3...

On one hand, I'm sad at being taken in by a forgery. On the hand, kudos to whoever made the fakes because they sure fooled myself and literally everyone in my local store!

Oh aye, they're a pretty darn impressive fake. I was taken in when someone on Asrai.org linked to them, but people quickly raised eyebrows to the pagination and the artwork. It's very easy to see why these were thought of as real, and rode the tide of excitement (the fact that they are in Italian helps with the 'mystery'.)

Looking forward to some real stuff later on! I.E. Someone with a better camera lol :P

[Tomgar]

Gave me a chance to dust off my truly awful foreign language skillz at any rate

Well, at least we definitely know that we get access to the Light and Dark elven lores but I'm unfamiliar with those books (Wood Elf, Lizardmen and Dwarf-heavy meta) so not sure if that's good or not. Still, can't be worse than the abysmal lore of Athel Loren!

[Chronowraith]

Definite fake. Note that the Forest Spirit rule on those pages give a 5+ Ward when the leaked White Dwarf pictures gave only a 6+.

[Tomgar]

PurpleSun over on Warseer posted a pic from the book. New character with two axes is in it but not much else besides some pics of already leaked models. Also, Stag Cavalry are confirmed (pics on Warseer) and it seems Eternal Guard are a dual kit with Waywatchers. Would post pics but I dunno if posted pics directly (as opposed to a link) would be frowned on.

Edit: actually, I'm thinking that the double axe guy that folk are calling a new character is the Champion for the Eternal Guard. Similar hood, antler head dress, two hand weapons? Sounds kinda Eternal Guard-y to me.

[Mr Mystery]

PurpleSun over on Warseer posted a pic from the book. New character with two axes is in it but not much else besides some pics of already leaked models. Also, Stag Cavalry are confirmed (pics on Warseer) and it seems Eternal Guard are a dual kit with Waywatchers. Would post pics but I dunno if posted pics directly (as opposed to a link) would be frowned on.

Edit: actually, I'm thinking that the double axe guy that folk are calling a new character is the Champion for the Eternal Guard. Similar hood, antler head dress, two hand weapons? Sounds kinda Eternal Guard-y to me.

Post and give credit is the norm.

SO POST THEM ALREADY.

I'm not going to Warseer. They offend my common sense

[qaz]

Double axe:



Stags:

[Mr Mystery]

Stags look to be some kind of Woodland Fey thing.

I like it!

[lattd]

Tree man ancient looks like he has some magic, two axe guy looks like a new weapon combo gfor glade guard, the deer looks sweet. Like that the treeman look more feral and wicked spirits rather that the branch weird things they were.

[Mr Mystery]

Can't wait to update this particular book in my collection.

1. Dunno where current one is. Had it when I moved in, now it's disappeared.
2. Current one is a really dull book. Very little colour in it.
3. Confusing lay out.