Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic.

This thread is for discussing new AoS releases; not for discussing AoS or GW generally.

Hmm an AoS boardgame?
Ala DW or BaC?

 Ratius wrote:
Hmm an AoS boardgame?
Ala DW or BaC?

Sounds like it...

Here's hoping that we get some new Tzeentchian Daemons as part of the overall line-up. Would be a nice way to throw some 40k stuff in if we're going to be seeing another 2-3 months of strait AoS releases.

Knowing that Tzeentch are going to be in the board game puts me off a little. Still excited for it, but maybe it won't be the instabuy I thought it would. I was hoping for something Warhammer Quest style.

By the way, if anyone's going to be getting the Dracoth Knights, I did a tutorial thread in P&M for all the GW AoS(starter box) paint videos. Should help a lot.


All on here

non nurgle/khorne chaos main model line release in a box 'faints'

Since I have nothing warhammer except a smattering of old 4th 5th ed minis of various races a new boxed game of AoS may be tempting enough for me to throw some more notes GW's way.

You could still get a hypothetical Quest style game out of a pure Tzeentch force.

Lots of horrors, flamers, screamers, cultists, some new chaos monsters perhaps... cap it off with a lord of change?

Pre orders are up on the New Zealand site
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Warhammer?N=102330+4294967192&Nu=product.repositoryId&qty=12&sorting=phl&view=table&_requestid=2102760
Including some nice art of the new dragon type thing. Also I think this paint scheme is much better than the gold.

Sprue Pics:

I think this model would improve considerably with a radical change of the chest plate, as it stands it looks a bit fatty. Good thing is that the sprue have them separated.

The star drake. From the digital sample.

The other pic. sorry.

That's an interesting looking creature. Want to see a 360. The wings seem off to me.

The main model is great, but holy crap the downturned wings suck. It's like they got put on upside-down......

OK. NOW THAT's COOL



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The main model is great, but holy crap the downturned wings suck. It's like they got put on upside-down......

Err.. He's walking?

Not bad, but the foreleg looks a bit awkward. Maybe it's the armour plating. Wouldn't mind a few different angles myself.

Not a fan at all of this one. The armour is overpowering, the wings look weird but the worst bit is the neck and clumsy like pose.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
By the way, if anyone's going to be getting the Dracoth Knights, I did a tutorial thread in P&M for all the GW AoS(starter box) paint videos. Should help a lot.


All on here

Thanks for this!

I bought enough boxed sets I planned on running them as regular Knights.

And do we have to use the armor on the dragon? That is putting me off as it looks like they tried to stuff a dragon into a dreadnought frame.

Something looks off.

Maybe the wings? Hopefully the 360 will help clarify things next week.

I wonder if there will be an alternate build for it.

Still undecided on this one. The gold paint job in the first pic really does it no favours. The armour is, for me, the worst part. Having lived with years and years of the exact same plastic wings on every monster kit, I am glad they are experimenting with the wings here. I am looking forward to seeing how long it is. From this angle it looks too squat, but a long body could help to balance the model out. I actually like the neck and the pose. There is no accounting for taste.

The blurry pic from last week definitely showed an alternate head. Who knows what other options there are.

oh man that is fething awesome....ima have me some of that 100%

Reaaallly need the 360 before I can say if I like it or not. Just can't get a good idea of the pose from that angle.

Man, can't wait to see the metal dwarfs model line

I haven't really been following GW's fantasy very closely since they started doing all that weirdness with TK a while back.. is that their first non-snake looking dragon?

 MLaw wrote:
I haven't really been following GW's fantasy very closely since they started doing all that weirdness with TK a while back.. is that their first non-snake looking dragon?

In plastic, yes. Resin no.

Is it me or is there only 1 wing on that dragon?

 Imateria wrote:
Is it me or is there only 1 wing on that dragon?

The other is obscured by the body, obviously.

First glance.. would have been an awesome model if it wasn't for the downpointy wings. I'll wait till I can see it more in action but right now I'm not wanting it.

I am gonna pick up some of the regular drakoth riders though.

Big dragon has the same awkward looking claws as its little brothers

Head is cool tho

Out of curiosity what other non-serpentine dragons have they done?

Looking at the other pic, the legs don't look too bad. I think it's the fact the shoulder plates are set so high.

(I like the scale texture on the legs. Very much this.)

Chikout wrote:
The armour is, for me, the worst part. Having lived with years and years of the exact same plastic wings on every monster kit, I am glad they are experimenting with the wings here.

That! I'd rather GW stopped putting enormous breastplates/barding/whatever on their big predaceous monsters. If you're riding the thing into battle because it's got a head full of teeth, horns and beaks, might be a good idea to let it bend it's neck down to make use of it.

That'll never fly

I Like the star drake! I wonder what the price Will be though, and those stormcast cavalry Will Come in my collection, also I wonder what the price Will be in euros for the star drake and the cavalry, I am Still in shock over the varanguard those are cool but expensive,

I think the star drake looks pretty clunky just like the dragon riders. Both a miss in my opinion.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Out of curiosity what other non-serpentine dragons have they done?

There's a pretty extensive showcase here.

And that's why I'm a Seb Perbett fanboy.

I was hoping the Star Drakes would have Tigrex type forelimbs, knuckle walking. I'm kind of disappointed that that isn't the case. With the way they designed them, those wings should really be held in a horizontal position, not upside-down. No winged animal carries its wings like that when it's on the ground.

I'm really liking it, overall. Especially the paint job on the face and mouth. The wing orientation does look odd at first glance, but I like that we can see them so well from the front.

Wonder how the miniature would look without its wings...could be a nice Giant Dracoth that way.

Hmmmm...Maybe I should try!

There are no four legged animals with wings. Bats are the closest and they do have their wings angled down. That said, this is a fantasy creature. If you dont like the aesthetic that's fine, but I don't think there is any way it 'should' be.

Yeah, but bats knuckle walk. That's what I was really hoping for.

Man, I'm surprised to see people so positive for this model; it is really ugly to my eyes. As in, so ugly that it almost makes me feel regretful rebasing an Order army for the game!

It's a cool model, but at this point, I'm sick and tired of Stormcast. I must say that I'm pretty excited about this boardgame. Tzeench warriors should be great

I like the Stormcast for the most part but I'm not a fan of this beasty.

The Stardrake might have been cool if it wasn't covered in angular and boring armor.

That and it's legs looks ugly.

Really like that Star Drake, the wing angle is very odd but in theory they'll be easy enough to rotate. Put them horizontal or even angled backwards a little and you'd have an awesome mini. I particularly like how grounded and 'wide' its stance is, the 'rearing up and flying-ish' pose they've used on a fair few recent dragons/monsters is impressive, but this definitely looks a lot more solid and imposing than Archaon's mount, for example.

 Carnikang wrote:
The Stardrake might have been cool if it wasn't covered in angular and boring armor.

That and it's legs looks ugly.

Yeah, thinking about it, that's my main beef. Same freaking armor than on the dracoth. He would have looked better and more distinctive if he didn't had it.

Crikey... Star Drake looks awesome.

Yep, I really like the Star Drake. Especially in the other paint scheme.

Well, Star Drake is pretty awesome He looks appropriately large, and the wings on him are very original. Armor is rockin' too, and he has a good name. Transporting him? I have no idea how one would do that Maybe magnetized wings, hehe.

@ImAGeek - I like the turquoise paint scheme for the mounts too. It nicely compliments the riders, IMO.

Now, am I crazy, or was there not a painting guide that popped out when AoS released? I recall buying one -- and spending maybe 5 minutes flipping through it before shelving it and never seeing it again. IIRC, it had Stormcast in the front and Chaos in the back.

But maybe I'm confused... GW popped out so many painting guides last year my head spun.

Tempest Lords Warrior Chamber upgrade sprue

 Talys wrote:
Well, Star Drake is pretty awesome He looks appropriately large, and the wings on him are very original. Armor is rockin' too, and he has a good name. Transporting him? I have no idea how one would do that Maybe magnetized wings, hehe.

@ImAGeek - I like the turquoise paint scheme for the mounts too. It nicely compliments the riders, IMO.

Now, am I crazy, or was there not a painting guide that popped out when AoS released? I recall buying one -- and spending maybe 5 minutes flipping through it before shelving it and never seeing it again. IIRC, it had Stormcast in the front and Chaos in the back.

But maybe I'm confused... GW popped out so many painting guides last year my head spun.

Yeah I like the turquoise Dracoth with the teal rider too, better than the gold.

There definitely was a painting guide, for the starter box, because it's on the app. But I can't find it on the web store anywhere.

Thats sad hes a bit front heavy looking, would have preferred normal drake, wing armour is weird and looks like it would stop the wing opening :/ frumpy stump legged cat dragon is not my cup of tea hope its just this angle, will wait for more shots to get a better idea, head is great tho.

I think what we're not fully grasping right now is how big this drake is going to be. And I think very very big.

The star drake fit really well with the stormcast design and esthetic concept IMO.

Just one thing: the way it is dressed up, and with the wings downturned, makes it look dominated and subdued.
The rider is clearly in charge, making it a contrast to most regal dragons proudly flexing their wings and leaping predatory at their foes.
A really fitting detail within the order vs chaos theme of the stormcast.

Also, I dont like the model much. Looking forward to see it properly 360 or irl though.

After the Terrorgeist and Karl Franz on Deathclaw this is a huge letdown for a big flyer. The pose looks very off and while I don't hate the Dracoth/Stardrake's hippo mouth looking snout I'm not the biggest fan, either.

I agree on the awkwardness of the claws.


Summary for Sigmarines: the AoS minis are awesome and some of the chars as well, everything else is a bit meh in comparison.

That star drake reminds me to much of that Tomb Kings sphinx beast thing, the name of which escapes me!

Take away the wings, switch the heads, and yeah, you would have a tomb kings model. The design, the pose, look very similar. Same sculptor?

will it be Stormcast vs Tzeentch?

I'm curious about the Dracoth - I like the beasts themselves as some sort of dragonspawn, but I don't like the armour and riders. I suppose they'll be stupid expensive so it doesn't matter, but do you guys think the armour can be removed? Also, they're pretty yooge, right? What size base are they on?

Star Drake is a big miss for me. Don't like the wonky foreleg, the armour, or the wings on it. But maybe better pictures will convince me.

Board Game I will keep my eye on.

 Carnikang wrote:
The Stardrake might have been cool if it wasn't covered in angular and boring armor.

That and it's legs looks ugly.

I agree, I think the Stardrake would have been awesome if it wasn't for the armour. I believe the armour is built on to it correct? If the armour was optional, I would have bought it and not put the armour on. I don't think any amount of filing the armour off would make it look good.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm curious about the Dracoth - I like the beasts themselves as some sort of dragonspawn, but I don't like the armour and riders. I suppose they'll be stupid expensive so it doesn't matter, but do you guys think the armour can be removed? Also, they're pretty yooge, right? What size base are they on?

About the armors, they're not removable parts. So, unless you remove it all with a modelism knife and resculpt all the scales by hand, it's dead.

For the base, it's the same than the one of Lord Celestant on Dracoth in the Starter Box for AoS. It can easily cover an old rectangular base 50mmx100mm with the tail unfurled.

Yes, they're quite big. A bit more than usual Monstruous Cavalry (not talking about actual Monsters).

A good thing to see GW is more clever with the price of those. Two miniatures for 65$/55€. They didn't make the same mistake for Chaos Vanguard, when you "have to" take three character-size monstruous cavalry for a quite dissuasive price.

Thus you can better rationalize the purchase. Not saying it's cheap, far from it. Also, prices for books definitely changed, and that's good as well. Thus if you want to read more background, have some nice pictures inside and also a few rules to play, you can take that more easily instead of printing everything from the web (since it's not free as well, for a quality that may vary greatly).

About the Star Drake, well we'll see if the wings can be repositioned or not. I was looking for a giant lizard anyway - and I feel like that if you just remove the wings, it can be better looking.

After all, in a Fantasy World, you don't need to have wings to fly. Just use magic, magic solves everything.

Gotta say, credit where credit is due, these models are indeed awesome. The Draco-Guards are pretty awesome, although it looks like they're only 2 to a pack (and an expensive pack to boot) but I am tempted. The Mega-draco is just awesome. I get the feeling these are suppose to be the Stormcast equivallent of Archaeon and his Varanguards.

Hopefully the dragon has more than one build options. The wings are weird looking in these pics but maybe in person it will be better, or maybe two wing options...but doubtful

The almighty 360 should certainly help waylay worries about how the thing looks from all angles.

I wouldn't say no to an alternate build though.

The Dracoth are growing on me now that I've had a chance to check out all their angles. For some reason I'm digging the crossbow builds the best.

I may end up grabbing some spare Lord Celestants from the starter box to see how easy they'd be to convert- at least in regards to weapons.

 Barzam wrote:
No winged animal carries its wings like that when it's on the ground.

Carnikang wrote:
That and it's legs looks ugly.

Well, they look like they're based on real reptiles, if that's what you mean.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Take away the wings, switch the heads, and yeah, you would have a tomb kings model. The design, the pose, look very similar. Same sculptor?

Almost certainly Seb Perbett. The wibble in the lips is giving me pause, but I'm reasonably confident.

On that note, I'm mildly surprised that after 20+ years of the same old flappy-footed, gravel-crusted, rubber-skinned, fish-gape dragon with a couple of different poses and degrees of stretching, this one is getting short shrift. (I mean, 'hippo-mouthed'...!) Or maybe that's the reason...
I agree that the armour's not great and the pose looks a bit awkward, but let's hold back complete condemnation until we get a less awkward camera angle?

You mean the same camera angle giving people reason to gush over it? Seems strange it's ok to think somethings great over a shot but not terrible.

 Vermis wrote:

On that note, I'm mildly surprised that after 20+ years of the same old flappy-footed, gravel-crusted, rubber-skinned, fish-gape dragon with a couple of different poses and degrees of stretching, this one is getting short shrift

Different =\= better?

Joyboozer wrote:You mean the same camera angle giving people reason to gush over it? Seems strange it's ok to think somethings great over a shot but not terrible.

You must've missed this bit:

Vermis wrote:
I agree that... the pose looks a bit awkward, but let's hold back complete condemnation until we get a less awkward camera angle?

If a better look at the thing reveals that it is duff, then it's duff. But I'm reasonably sure it's not. A halfway closer look at the forelegs suggests to me that the shape and position of the leg armour (especially the weird roundy bits over the wrists) are throwing off my initial perception of the awkward pose. If you look at the position of the wrists and shoulders under the armour, it looks like a pretty standard, straight-legged, A-shaped, braced pose. I wish there was a bit more impression of weight on the forefeet and the bits of ruins, but eh.
The scale texture on the legs and underbelly is ridiculously fine and - stop me if you've heard it before - realistic for a warhammer dragon. Compared to the old-style scales that the dracoths still have, where the edges of huge, irregular scales just sorta... fade into the skin.
Stumpy legs, I don't even... Compared to what? They seem to be raising it's belly almost a stormcast's height off the ground. That's not peanuts. Is it that they're thick? Heaven forfend that a huge elephant+ sized creature could seem to support it's own weight.

The more I look at the pose the more I'm getting a big, blue, reptilian Battlecat vibe off it. That's alright by me.

Downward pointing wings = unnatural is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. (You can dislike the wings for pointing down, but arguing they're unnatural...)
One, people argue that wings pointing down is unnatural, them in the next breath cite knuckle-walking bats and other dragons with... downward-pointing wings. (You lot forgot pterosaurs, too) Two, see my last post. Three, other, non-displaying birds hold the 'forearm' of their wings at a pretty definite downward slope, at times. Especially noticable when folding or unfolding their wings. See the first twenty seconds here, or here, or here. Pointing down in the middle in a half-folded, opening/closing motion. Where have we seen that recently?

Anything else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Different =\= better?

After twenty years of that, it does.

I have to say, with each new Stormcast release I'm more and more glad I didn't start an army of these guys.

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment. Not to take anything from those of you who like it, but they are just not doing anything for me. For now, I'll stick with my beloved Lizardm... I mean Seraphon at least until I see a new AOS faction that really grabs me.

Vermis, I'm not saying it's good or bad, and I wasn't necessarily aiming my post at you, I just don't get why ever AoS release is excused by bad photography.
I can just imagine the response if someone who loved the mini was told, just wait for the 360 to see how bad it really is.
Me, I don't care for any of the Stormcast, i find them incredibly boring and a barrier to enjoying AoS.
Major releases for other races please GW.

More winged animals on the ground.

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

The majority of Stormcast releases have been variations of the starter box. The ones that haven't been (Lord Castellent, Lord Celestant, Knight-Venator, Heralder) have mostly been individual figures that have been pretty cool. I think Judicators are the only new style of unit. The Celestant Prime disappoints a bit (not a fan of the swirly bits, though I like the figure itself) and the Stardrake, I'm not feeling, but really, if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

 Vermis wrote:

Carnikang wrote:
That and it's legs looks ugly.

Well, they look like they're based on real reptiles, if that's what you mean.

Doesn't mean it's not ugly when put into model form.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

The majority of Stormcast releases have been variations of the starter box.The ones that haven't been (Lord Castellent, Lord Celestant, Knight-Venator, Heralder) have mostly been individual figures that have been pretty cool. I think Judicators are the only new style of unit. The Celestant Prime disappoints a bit (not a fan of the swirly bits, though I like the figure itself) and the Stardrake, I'm not feeling, but really, if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

I think that this might actually be the cause of the disapointment.

As for the drake, I'd expect him to have at least an alternative build. ANd I wouldn't be surprised if it involves reversing the wings. GW has been pretty clever when it comes to dual kits in the last few years.

I really want to turn that dragon into a Daemon Engine.

Lance845 wrote:
More winged animals on the ground.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

... there is this guy too:

My main issue with the wings is how small they seem to be compared to a model that looks very big. I guess we'll see how it turns out with the 360 view. We don't even know how the tail looks like for now haha.

 Haechi wrote:
My main issue with the wings is how small they seem to be compared to a model that looks very big.

they look ginormous even wrinkled down the way they are now oO

Bit blurry, but in the background of this picture, you can see the Star Drake's wings.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

Its because they all look the same that I lost interest. Aside from these new mounted figures (which have their own issues) the rest of the army is distressingly repetitive and visually boring, IMO.

Lance845 wrote:
More winged animals on the ground.

This thing is, all those examples are quadruped animals. They use their wings as front legs, that's why they stick up the way they do. Look at Smaug, the dragon from The Hobbit, he's the same way. The Stormcast dragon is a hexaped however, he's got four actual legs to stand on, he doesn't need his wings to function as legs when he's on the ground. His wings should logically fold upward like a bird's do, when he's on the ground.

 mdauben wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

Its because they all look the same that I lost interest. Aside from these new mounted figures (which have their own issues) the rest of the army is distressingly repetitive and visually boring, IMO.

Model them differently then? No one says you have to have them as an army of clones. Use some different heads. Add your own bits to them.

Yay for having to fix something to make it acceptable and not monotonous!

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Model them differently then? No one says you have to have them as an army of clones. Use some different heads. Add your own bits to them.

Bare heads might help a little, but they are still all big guys in gold armor with X weapon. Their are already different details on different Stormcast troops, so bits are not going to be enough to change their basic appearance. There's no way to change that short of resculpting the figures from scratch, a task beyond both my talents and my desire.

To be honest, I have much the same issue with 40K space marines, although at least they have scouts to break up the monotony a little.

 mdauben wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

Its because they all look the same that I lost interest. Aside from these new mounted figures (which have their own issues) the rest of the army is distressingly repetitive and visually boring, IMO.

Lance845 wrote:
More winged animals on the ground.

This thing is, all those examples are quadruped animals. They use their wings as front legs, that's why they stick up the way they do. Look at Smaug, the dragon from The Hobbit, he's the same way. The Stormcast dragon is a hexaped however, he's got four actual legs to stand on, he doesn't need his wings to function as legs when he's on the ground. His wings should logically fold upward like a bird's do, when he's on the ground.

This image says a lot I think?

The wings are like those of the Smaug model


I cannot say I like the Stardrake though.

Stormcast are all similar, to the same extent spaces marine are.

Theres nothing wrong with the wings. Imagine a lion rearing his head to roar, or a wolf to howl.

It never ceases to amaze me the lenghts hater will go to hate on sigmar.

Oh, and "childsh"? People, were talking about toy soldiers...

sadysaneto wrote:
toy soldiers...

Toy soldiers or Man Dollies?

sadysaneto wrote:
Stormcast are all similar, to the same extent spaces marine are.

Theres nothing wrong with the wings. Imagine a lion rearing his head to roar, or a wolf to howl.

It never ceases to amaze me the lenghts hater will go to hate on sigmar.

Oh, and "childsh"? People, were talking about toy soldiers...

Ugh.

People are allowed opinions different to yours. They are entitled to express them. You are entitled to disagree.

This is best done substantiated with reason, logic or intelligently expressed thoughts as appropriate. Telling them they're wrong, that "nothing is wrong" with the things they've expressed reservations about or calling them haters does not fall into any of those categories.

Exactly what lengths have these people gone to in order to express their 'hate?' Typing a few words on a keyboard? The humanity!

Welcome to Dakka.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
This image says a lot I think?

It just says that the artist had the same lack of anatomical knowledge as the sculptor of the Stormcast dragon. Obviously, both chose to pose the dragon that way because they thought it looked good, but from the feedback here it seems that is far from a universal opinion.

Ugh. It's a mythical creature. There are no 6 limbed reptiles on this planet. We have no anatomical examples to draw from. So no one here has any idea what a dragon would be like. Only our imaginations.
Anyways... let's get back on topic shall we? N&R thread after all.

I'm just unhappy to see effort spent on another gigantic, expensive model. Obviously even with a new leader, the more extreme parts of GW remain.

Any word on the Tzn side of things yet?

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Ugh. It's a mythical creature. There are no 6 limbed reptiles on this planet. We have no anatomical examples to draw from. So no one here has any idea what a dragon would be like. Only our imaginations.

Anyways... let's get back on topic shall we? N&R thread after all.

A few more pics of the Star Drake:

Wow nice, they look so much better with the front plate painted. I sort of want to start a SE army just to have one of those as a centerpiece now... what's wrong with me...

All of those models look better from a higher-up angle. Looks like there's a slight bit of variation with the star drake.

 mdauben wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Ugh. It's a mythical creature. There are no 6 limbed reptiles on this planet. We have no anatomical examples to draw from. So no one here has any idea what a dragon would be like. Only our imaginations.

Anyways... let's get back on topic shall we? N&R thread after all.
I have not seen any OT posting going on. Part of a N&R thread is people expressing their opinions on the N&R that is presented. I've expressed mine, you've expressed yours and obviously neither of use are going to change our minds. 'Nuff said. I do agree its time to move on.

That, and bio-mechanical engineering is a thing, there's absolutely no reason why one couldn't quite accurately speculate on exactly how a six limbed vertebrate would bolt together, and the limitations and advantages that would bring.

Besides, if it looks wrong, it looks wrong, no amount of justification on behalf of those who have no idea how animals work have different tastes is going to change that.

As to the latest pics, I've been keeping my powder dry as I'm firmly in the "not sure" camp. I think daffodil yellow wing membranes is a stupid idea, and I'm not going to be sure until I see naked plastic.

Man, they should have made those wings such that they could be assembled at slightly different angles... I can think of several ways to have done that, and I think it's something GW needs to start considering with big kits like this if they're going to photograph 4 of them together!

I almost think there might be a slight change in the angle of the wings looking at the photo (along with the two heads), but if so it's not a huge one

the other explanation is they've photoshopped in the dragons and on two of them cut off one of the wings

I dont mind the little ones too much but the big fella still not my cup of tea. Looks like theres going to be 2 different head options and thats it?

I think the alternate build has the left wing right against the body, and the right wing seems a very slightly different angle.

 RiTides wrote:
Man, they should have made those wings such that they could be assembled at slightly different angles... I can think of several ways to have done that, and I think it's something GW needs to start considering with big kits like this if they're going to photograph 4 of them together!

I'm surprised they haven't gone more down this route. I think one of the barriers to selling more monster kits in fantasy is the repetitive look. It works for tanks in 40k but looks weird to have multiple of the exact same pose monsters. The magmadroth and this guy seem to have 2 builds, but I think kits should come with at least 3 fairly distinct looks if possible. The right wing on all of these star drakes immediately stands out as repetitive if there's more than one in the picture/battlefield.

It looks like the left wing can be positioned closer to the body. I'm pretty sure you can do the same with the right one with minimum amount of greenstuff.

 Ghaz wrote:
A few more pics of the Star Drake:

I see this image in front of me and just behind it in my cabinet is a Legion Archangel, one of, if not the most beautiful PP models out there. I can only think one thing. Those wings are fething ugly on that Star Drake.

I think what's throwing everybody off with the wings is that usually they're seen fully extended and not pulled back like these are.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
A few more pics of the Star Drake:

I see this image in front of me and just behind it in my cabinet is a Legion Archangel, one of, if not the most beautiful PP models out there. I can only think one thing. Those wings are fething ugly on that Star Drake.

All I thought was, those mounted dudes (24+) at £40 for 2. You're around £500 without counting those dragon things....

Yup... must be cheaper than WFB was. :-(

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
All I thought was, those mounted dudes (24+) at £40 for 2. You're around £500 without counting those dragon things....

Yup... must be cheaper than WFB was. :-(

They come in at $845 US just for the Dracothians. Those Star Dragons have got to be more expensive than the Magmadroths, so let's estimate $140 and that would give us a total of $1,405.

Don't know who they intend to sell it to, because I don't see any of this AoS stuff floating around my area.

Did you see pictures of GW's studio WHFB armies and calculate the prices of those?

How much would it cost to assembled the armies for the Battle of Volganaf, from the 8th edition BRB?

I can't be sure, but at RRP, less per model than that load of dragon ponies.

Rihgu wrote:
Did you see pictures of GW's studio WHFB armies and calculate the prices of those?

How much would it cost to assembled the armies for the Battle of Volganaf, from the 8th edition BRB?

Did that battle have formations for each side insinuating it was something to be fielded in regular gameplay?

 Azreal13 wrote:
I can't be sure, but at RRP, less per model than that load of dragon ponies.

I'm inclined to agree with that estimate.

Did that battle have formations for each side insinuating it was something to be fielded in regular gameplay?

No, but neither does the Extremis Chamber. Which we have a name of, and a picture of.
The formation could be 1+ Star Drake and 1+ "dragon ponies" (to steal the nickname from Azreal13), and the picture is just there to show, "hey, look how cool they look grouped all together!" just like the battle of Volganaf was "hey, look how cool huge battles are!"

 Ghaz wrote:
I think what's throwing everybody off with the wings is that usually they're seen fully extended and not pulled back like these are.

I think it's partly the colour choice, and partly that the anatomy is off. Wings are generally modified arms, with the 'finger' bones forming the framework for the membrane. This guy has way too many 'fingers' on his wings.

I think that would be less jarring in a less contrasted colour scheme, though. The pale cream against the green just makes it really stand out.

 Breotan wrote:

They come in at $845 US just for the Dracothians. Those Star Dragons have got to be more expensive than the Magmadroths, so let's estimate $140 and that would give us a total of $1,405.

Don't know who they intend to sell it to, because I don't see any of this AoS stuff floating around my area.

Have you never been to the painting showcase section? There are people buying painting commissions for armies 4 times bigger than what's on this picture. There's range for everybody in the hobby, not only your price bracket.

Fun things to notice;

- The Star Drake riders look like there are two different kinds - one is clearly the leader or a character, others look more generic...maybe some kind of troopers?
- We can see the usual weapons for elite Stormcast: big hammer, big axe, big lance. Certainly the same than Dracoth riders. Does that mean there are three different types of Star Drake riders? Naaah.
- Two different heads for the big monster. Would you like its mouth opened or closed? You choose.
- The way they are put together is strange...It looks like they are some kind of Monster Unit...Now that would be quite monstruous.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
I think what's throwing everybody off with the wings is that usually they're seen fully extended and not pulled back like these are.

I think it's partly the colour choice, and partly that the anatomy is off. Wings are generally modified arms, with the 'finger' bones forming the framework for the membrane. This guy has way too many 'fingers' on his wings.

I think that would be less jarring in a less contrasted colour scheme, though. The pale cream against the green just makes it really stand out.

Anatomy is really a non-issue to me when it comes to mythological creatures. If it didn't bother the Norse when they had an eight-legged horse, I'm not going to let a wing with a few extra fingerbones bother me

Anatomy is a very real issue, mythological or not.

We are all aware, consciously or no, of what looks right in an organic construct and what doesn't.

Give me a flaming, reincarnated bid of prey? No problem. Draw/sculpt/assemble it with the wings on backwards or a foot for a face? It's going to look weird

The unit of dragons sounds logical. Why sell 1 when you can sell 5?

It's growing on me a bit more and I think it will look even better with different colors on the wings especially. I was thinking of getting the Sigmarine Prime to lead my army, but I may just go with the star drake instead.. I have so much stuff to paint before I get to that point though, by the time I get around to it I bet there will be something else big and awesome to get instead. I'm forcing myself to paint the rest of my army before I buy anything new. So that's 2 units of shield guys, 2 units of flyer guys, and 1 unit of xbows.. I need a job where I can stay home and paint my minis all day long.

The battalion is probably 1 boss star drake 1+ regular star drake and 1 unit of each of the Knights. If we assume the new dragon to be £80 you could build that battalion for £240. Still stupidly expensive but not outside the realm of the possible.
Regarding anatomy, what if these wings are more like fins.

Well the picture is definitely for a Warscroll formation so the amount of minis is probably right. It's nothing new though. There's always been small and regular formations, and one that is made of all the smaller ones. Everchosen and Seraphons are a perfect example of that.

This one is the Extremis Chamber formation as a whole. And from the picture I'm guessing it's the smaller formation x3 and 1 Lord Celestant on Star Drake. The small formation is probably 1 Star Drake and 2 units of Dracothian Guards.

 Ghaz wrote:
Anatomy is really a non-issue to me when it comes to mythological creatures. If it didn't bother the Norse when they had an eight-legged horse, I'm not going to let a wing with a few extra fingerbones bother me

The thing is, even fantasy creatures look better when the anatomy makes sense. We all fudge this to some extent (most dragons portrayed in popular fantasy would be completely incapable of flight unless they're supported by some other means, like magic or (in the case of Anne McCaffrey's version, Telekinesis), for example. But even with that consession made, we still look at a dragon with grossly under-sized wings and think that they look too small.

How far to take that is obviously going to vary from person to person, but I would suspect that a lot of people react to it without even consciously realising it when deciding what looks good or not.

Chikout wrote:
Regarding anatomy, what if these wings are more like fins.

Fins are also modified hands. Structurally, they're not that different to wings.

The issue isn't just that the wings have too many bones. It's that they have a different number of bones to the dragon's other 4 limbs. It would look more aesthetically 'correct' if the underlying bone structure of the wings matched the forelegs.


It's not a deal-breaker... I still quite like it overall. But it is a thing that makes the kit look a little odd overall, that I think would have been better with a little more forethought in the design stage.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Anatomy is really a non-issue to me when it comes to mythological creatures. If it didn't bother the Norse when they had an eight-legged horse, I'm not going to let a wing with a few extra fingerbones bother me

The thing is, even fantasy creatures look better when the anatomy makes sense.

Absolutely correct. We are more likely to believe the unreal when it's rooted in the real. If the parts make sense, we become less critical.

Example- GW Bullgors and their horrible "muscles".

 mdauben wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
More winged animals on the ground.

This thing is, all those examples are quadruped animals. They use their wings as front legs, that's why they stick up the way they do. Look at Smaug, the dragon from The Hobbit, he's the same way. The Stormcast dragon is a hexaped however, he's got four actual legs to stand on, he doesn't need his wings to function as legs when he's on the ground. His wings should logically fold upward like a bird's do, when he's on the ground.

There are no 6 limbed winged animals in real life.

To say those extra set of limbs should be doing anything is nonsense. It's a fictional set up on a fictional animal that frankly lacks the muscle groups needed to have those wings be powerful enough to carry it's body. Which is mostly the problem with any 6 limbed winged dragon like animal. A birds wings work because of all the muscles that attach to it's chest. Which is why birds all have such large powerful chests. Wings attached to their back don't have the large muscle groups needed to get actual lift without DRASTICALLY larger wings. Like... preposterously large.

The complaint that it is holding it's wings oddly is a silly complaint for something that shouldn't have functional wings to begin with.

Maybe the gravity in the mortal realms is less. That would explain the scale creep.

Last I checked, don't insects have six legs and wings?

Not that these dragons are modeled on insects or anything...

After finishing up my Kingdom Death Dragon King though, sadly these Star Drakes are going to have a tough act to follow in my home.

I'm hoping for a price under 80 US, but that's probably a bit too dreamy, isn't it?

He probably conflated "animals" with "vertebrates."

Besides, Arthropoda is a special case, in many cases they're using completely different mechanisms of locomotion and respiration, spiders, for instance, use a sort of hydraulic system to extend and retract their legs.

But, I return to my earlier point, whether it's mechanically sound or no, we're all conditioned to understand what looks right, and if an entirely made up animal doesn't look like it would work, that's the core of it.

One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

Insect wings are modified pieces of carapace as opposed to vertebrate wings, which are modified limbs. But I think insaniak really hit the nail on the head; models will tend to look better with natural or semi-natural structure. The wings look weird because of that (as well as the folding bit someone else mentioned, imo). I don't mind the wings too much though, what bugs me more about that image is the identical posing of the body, particularly the front legs. Some poses do better than others in multiples; for me this isn't one of them. Definitely something I would only use one of because of that (or heavy convert another).

As for the rider I am betting Vandus gets an upgraded mount (since he and his dracoth just got murdered by Archaon), while the other is a generic character

 Azreal13 wrote:
One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

If that were true then no one would be allowed to like it. You're contradicting yourself.

 Azreal13 wrote:
One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

Sure they can. To a lot of people, it really doesn't matter.

To me, it looks a little wrong, but I still like the model overall. To others, it will look wrong enough that they won't like the model... or they'll think 'It's a dragon!' and that's good enough.

To that latter group, the fact that it's a made up animal means anything goes. I don't agree with that idea personally, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

If that were true then no one would be allowed to like it. You're contradicting yourself.

Huh?

A: "I like it "

B: "I don't think it looks right, so I'm not sure I do."

A: "Well, it's entirely made up, so it doesn't matter whether you think it looks right or not because it's irrelevant,"

"I like it" is fine, "your reasons for not liking it are invalid because it's fictional" is not.

 insaniak wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

Sure they can. To a lot of people, it really doesn't matter.

To me, it looks a little wrong, but I still like the model overall. To others, it will look wrong enough that they won't like the model... or they'll think 'It's a dragon!' and that's good enough.

To that latter group, the fact that it's a made up animal means anything goes. I don't agree with that idea personally, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

For me, it's more like... "Huh... looks cool... LIKE!" There is a great suspension of reality in any of these models or games anyhow. I mean, none of it passes tests of common sense, basic physics, or simple logic, so why stop at a parallel to a "real" animal to like it or not

If I were to hyperanalyze it, there are characteristics of real creatures in the animal kingdom that make me think of characteristics like aggressiveness, toughness, speed, nimbleness or strength. So, just like a car design, some shapes turn out more pleasing than others, and become more believable as a fictional (heroic) monster. But most of that is subconscious, and when I look at a fantasy model, resemblance (or lack thereof) to any real creature doesn't give or deduct any points at all in my book.

I wonder how it will look like WITHOUT wings and if it will be easy to fix with greenstuff. Cause a freaking giant armored lizard would go very well with the cavalry.

Cavalry which btw has the legs casted on the Dracoth's sides, and that blows. I wanted to put them on thunderwolves.

Thanks to Bart Kersteter on FB. From the Start Collecting box we can see the new names for Night Goblins and confirm they aren't going anywhere:

Too bad it looks like it will be a repacking release only.

"Moonclan"? I think Runescape would like a word GW...

Orruks

They really went there

This will definitely not just be a repackaging release. We have very reliable rumours saying there will be a monster, a cavalry unit, an on foot unit and some clam packs. Given that regular orcs, black orcs, spider goblins and now night goblins have all been seen on round bases, it seems likely that the new stuff will be savage in nature. About two weeks to go until we see pics.

Repacks of older Models means new Campaign Book.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Orruks

They really went there

We have know this since the game was released.

New miniatures with a new Ork look would be PART of the O&G range - like Savage Orks or Black Orks - but not replacing it entirely. GW have shown with the Seraphon that they are willing to repaint their studio army to create a different look. The aforementioned rumored kits (by Darnok)? Yes, most likely coming and maybe even replacing some basic ones like the Ork Boyz.

But the entire range will not be replaced with different looking greenskins. They are not changing every sprue for every kit containing Orks, are they? It would be a ridiculous amount of work, this is not happening. I think waiting for a complete change of the Ork look can only lead to disappointment.

The silence of SP about this specific topic also made me doubt a massive overhaul. Especially as he correctly rumored a significant Stormcast release and more Khorne instead. But he has not mentioned new, updated Greenskins so far...

Warhams-77 wrote:
New miniatures with a new Ork look would be PART of the O&G range - like Savage Orks or Black Orks - but not replacing it entirely. GW have shown with the Seraphon that they are willing to repaint their studio army to create a different look. The aforementioned rumored kits (by Darnok)? Yes, most likely coming and maybe even replacing some basic ones like the Ork Boyz.

But the entire range will not be replaced with different looking greenskins. They are not changing every sprue for every kit containing Orks, are they? It would be a ridiculous amount of work, this is not happening. I think waiting for a complete change of the Ork look can only lead to disappointment.

The silence of SP about this specific topic also made me doubt a massive overhaul. Especially as he correctly rumored a significant Stormcast release and more Khorne instead. But he has not mentioned new, updated Greenskins so far...

I wouldn't count on Ork boyz since the old ones are in the Start Collecting box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stardrake (1 model) 120 euros / £85 / $140 / AU$ a still bloody Unicorn horn cut during a full moon / NZ$ same as the Aussies, but must be sprinkled with the tears of the innocents

Next week hints talk about uniting against the Gorechosen

 Haechi wrote:
I wonder how it will look like WITHOUT wings and if it will be easy to fix with greenstuff. Cause a freaking giant armored lizard would go very well with the cavalry.

Cavalry which btw has the legs casted on the Dracoth's sides, and that blows. I wanted to put them on thunderwolves.

Hmm.. I think I like that idea a lot. I'm sure it could be done but you might end up having to carve and resculpt a lot

As far as what looks real or not, that's not the issue for me it's all about the position how they're pointed down, but I'm sure it will look much better in person. I remember seeing a documentary on the Discovery channel (I think) about how there's no possible way in physics that an angel's wings would be able to make an almost 200 pound guy fly, unless they were like 2-3x as big as he was or something like that, and human back bones and muscles wouldn't be able to support that weight very well either. For me I could care less about if it would be real, it's a fantasy game after all. All that maters to me is how awesome the model looks. I don't even care about game stats, I build my armies based on looks (and that's prolly why I lose 9 times outta 10 )

 Haechi wrote:

Warhams-77 wrote:
New miniatures with a new Ork look would be PART of the O&G range - like Savage Orks or Black Orks - but not replacing it entirely. GW have shown with the Seraphon that they are willing to repaint their studio army to create a different look. The aforementioned rumored kits (by Darnok)? Yes, most likely coming and maybe even replacing some basic ones like the Ork Boyz.

But the entire range will not be replaced with different looking greenskins. They are not changing every sprue for every kit containing Orks, are they? It would be a ridiculous amount of work, this is not happening. I think waiting for a complete change of the Ork look can only lead to disappointment.

The silence of SP about this specific topic also made me doubt a massive overhaul. Especially as he correctly rumored a significant Stormcast release and more Khorne instead. But he has not mentioned new, updated Greenskins so far...

I wouldn't count on Ork boyz since the old ones are in the Start Collecting box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stardrake (1 model) 120 euros / £85 / $140 / AU$ a still bloody Unicorn horn cut during a full moon / NZ$ same as the Aussies, but must be sprinkled with the tears of the innocents

Next week hints talk about uniting against the Gorechosen

Same as the old Imperial Knight then.

From Warseer:

Archibald_TK wrote:
Here is your weekly WD peek, sprinkled with the nonsensical rambling that you all love/hate/make you gouge your eyes!

So regarding the Star Drake, let me first say that if you have an opinion on the model whatever it may be, then the WD probably won't change it at all. As far as I can see, all pics are done from the same angle we've seen so far. So no top/side/rear view of the model, or even from the left shoulder. Two scrolls inside: Lord-Celestant on Stardrake and Drakesworn Templar. (EDIT- both are Stardrakes but with a different rider)

Stardrake (1 model) 120€ / £85 / $140 / AU$ a fresh and bloody Unicorn horn cut during a full moon / NZ$ same as the Aussies, but must be sprinkled with the tears of the innocents

Next week hints talk about uniting against the Gorechosen, whatever that may be.

And... that's all there is to it. There's not much in this week WD of note besides a pretty cool looking flyer conversion based on an Imperial Knight carapace.

 Mymearan wrote:
Thanks to Bart Kersteter on FB. From the Start Collecting box we can see the new names for Night Goblins and confirm they aren't going anywhere

Except now they're Moon™Clan™ Grots™!

 Necros wrote:
I don't even care about game stats, I build my armies based on looks (and that's prolly why I lose 9 times outta 10 )

MY FRIEND <3

That Dragon would've looked so much better if it didn't have that much armour on its chest and if they had gone the Reign of Fire style for the dragon's arms and wings.

It's a real damn shame.

Here is another picture from Twitter.

The wings kinda look like they're tacked on as an afterthought in that pic.

The star drake looks cumbersome, which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my view, since this design aesthetic matches the rest of the stormcast range, in which, it seems to me, however ornate, nothing is refined and everything goes 'bang!'

Well, they're not elves, so I think it works. But when I first saw the new Bloodthirsters, I thought Wow! Same for the new Archaon, same again for Skarbrand, and the Magmadroth. I can't say the star drake's had the same effect. It's just a bigger Dracoth. With wings.

Does the Star Drake have a breath weapon attack too?

 Alpharius wrote:
Does the Star Drake have a breath weapon attack too?

The glowing effect from his mouth would suggest that he does...

Probably vomits a flaming meteor.

Or a hammer.

This pictures makes me want one -.-

Funbug No.1 wrote:Probably vomits a flaming meteor.

Azreal13 wrote:Or a hammer.

Why not a flaming meteor hammer?

Much better photo, im sure people can remount the wings if desired, still think he is a bit stumpy, may try and strip of the armour and sculpt in the missing skin, shouldnt be too hard! he fits in with the dragon cat mounts tho, and with the chunky hammer handed sigmerite range in general. Not sold just yet but getting better. Price will probably kill it for me tho, unless the misses wants it.

Aleguzzeler Gargant... seriously..

Mellon wrote:

Funbug No.1 wrote:Probably vomits a flaming meteor.

Azreal13 wrote:Or a hammer.

Why not a flaming meteor hammer?

Because that would be ridiculous.

Man, I am digging that Drake. Think I might have to get me one.

 Mymearan wrote:
Thanks to Bart Kersteter on FB. From the Start Collecting box we can see the new names for Night Goblins and confirm they aren't going anywhere:

Spoiler:

Aleguzzler gargaunt? Thats an odd name

I like how it looks kind of clumsy, like actual lizards do sometimes.

Chikout wrote:
Here is another picture from Twitter.

Spoiler:

Those armour plates..... Why....?

I'm sure GW will sell this beast to the AoS players whether it had armour or not.
However, they'd probably sell a shed load more to other fantasy players if it didn't have that ridiculous armour and the usual GW icons.
(At least make the armour optional)

I sometimes wonder if they are really trying to make money.

I wonder what if they realize that neck armor basically makes it so the dragon cant lower its head. Yet another over the top model with some random dude swinging a hammer.

 Kirasu wrote:
I wonder what if they realize that neck armor basically makes it so the dragon cant lower its head. Yet another over the top model with some random dude swinging a hammer.

You realise it's segmented armour, right?Thus allowing for movement. Which the LC's dracoths have as well I might add..

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Those armour plates..... Why....?
They'd probably sell a shed load more to other fantasy players if it didn't have that ridiculous armour and the usual GW icons.

The armor plates look like they are detachable, plus they look alright ... should be effective against arrow volleys and whatnot

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I wonder what if they realize that neck armor basically makes it so the dragon cant lower its head. Yet another over the top model with some random dude swinging a hammer.

You realise it's segmented armour, right?Thus allowing for movement. Which the LC's dracoths have as well I might add..

Segmented neck armour, over a chestplate with a large spike sticking up in the middle. So as he lowers his head, he's going to shiv himself in the trachea through the joints in his neck armour.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Orruks

They really went there

GW is getting too much grief over this one. No less a source than J.R.R. Tolkien, in his later years, concluded that "orc" should be properly spelt "ork" for philological reasons. This only came to light in 1993 so turns out GW was ahead of the curve there. They are on solid ground with orruk, too. It's an apparent cognate of uruk, which is Black Speech for orc, not to mention the common stem órok. What's Tolkien got to do with Warhammer Fantasy? Well, he's the only reason we're talking about orcs in the first place. Now, ogors ... I got nothing for ogors ... but in a world of Stormcast Concussors, so be it!

 insaniak wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I wonder what if they realize that neck armor basically makes it so the dragon cant lower its head. Yet another over the top model with some random dude swinging a hammer.

You realise it's segmented armour, right?Thus allowing for movement. Which the LC's dracoths have as well I might add..

Segmented neck armour, over a chestplate with a large spike sticking up in the middle. So as he lowers his head, he's going to shiv himself in the trachea through the joints in his neck armour.

Well, it's pretty obvious that it's stylised.I doubt in reality that chest plate would jut out so it stabs him through the trachea lol.

 Mymearan wrote:
Thanks to Bart Kersteter on FB. From the Start Collecting box we can see the new names for Night Goblins and confirm they aren't going anywhere:

Black Orruks? Don't they mean Ironjaw Orruks?

I think "Gobbos" would have been better than "grotz" - "Night Gobbos".

Anyway, glad they are sticking around as a.) I have an army of them and b.) they're awesome! :-)

Screw the Stormcast stuff. I want Tzeentch news!!

Well... at least we know what it would look like if a dragon humped a dreadnaught while being ridden by a sanguinary guard...

Not terrible but a missed oppurtunity if those plates can't come off for sure, and so many times I have wished AoS wings of all kinds weren't covered in icons...

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Not terrible but a missed oppurtunity if those plates can't come off for sure, and so many times I have wished AoS wings of all kinds weren't covered in icons...

My guess is that at least a few of these plates won't be removable because they make for an easier mould if they are integrated to cover up some organic parts of the anatomy.

That lizard seems like an interesting concept for once, but the front legs look pretty odd, and the armor (oh the armor) not only makes it more evident but also ruins the model completely for me. If you have ever worn anything that resembles plate armour, you know those neck plates are not going to work as intended. That armor (not just the neck plates) looks very silly.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Mellon wrote:

Funbug No.1 wrote:Probably vomits a flaming meteor.

Azreal13 wrote:Or a hammer.

Why not a flaming meteor hammer?

Because that would be ridiculous.

The only thing that makes sense is a lightning hammer!

love the variety, and alternate heads
http://imgur.com/a/0BGzI

 Korinov wrote:
That lizard seems like an interesting concept for once, but the front legs look pretty odd, and the armor (oh the armor) not only makes it more evident but also ruins the model completely for me. If you have ever worn anything that resembles plate armour, you know those neck plates are not going to work as intended. That armor (not just the neck plates) looks very silly.

Pretty much. Segmented lames like that ("lames" are the articulared pieces)really only flex well the other three ways that the neck would flex, but not very well down towards the chest, especially in that length of sections. My suit of plate has a breast-and backplate that's segmented as two plates, upper and lower, and it flexes a little when I bend forwards and backwards, but not a whole heck of a lot. You only get so much before the upper plate scrapes against the next one down and stops.

SO.. yeah... Looking at the close up pics, I'm growing steadily less sold on this.

Its a pretty kit, but once you start looking at the details, you notice things like the neck-stabbing chestplater, the similarly-stabby knee armour that would prevent him from standing flat on the ground without gouging out the top of his front feet... and the wing decorations that lack any sort of hinge to allow the wings to unfurl. That would make sense if he was supposed to be unable to fly while held subordinate to the Sigmarite... but the rules make it clear that he can, which would suggest that his wings are supposed to be functional.


Wingbones aside (as that's an aesthetic design choice, rather than technically a flaw) it's an awesome looking dragon that has been seriously let down by a lack of attention to detail.

Rules got posted. Edit: as in the link above.

Those riders' shoulder pads are positively Khadorian too...

 Azreal13 wrote:
Those riders' shoulder pads are positively Khadorian too...

Nah, with his arms lowered he can see to his left and right, that's treason in Khador.

They just seem utterly incapable of flight to me. The wings and forearms just don't have any natural flow or rhythm to them.

That, and it's another OTT rules release. Good luck to the community points gurus who have to figure out how to slot in something can eat 3 chaos lords in a turn.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

They just seem utterly incapable of flight to me. The wings and forearms just don't have any natural flow or rhythm to them.

That, and it's another OTT rules release. Good luck to the community points gurus who have to figure out how to slot in something can eat 3 chaos lords in a turn.

TBF that's a 1 in 216 chance. And they already had to point Nagash, Skarbrand, Archaeon, and Skaarac, so I don't see this as a hurdle they haven't crossed several times already.

I might be missing something but to me the Templar with Skybolt Bow and Arc Hammer looks way better than any configuration of the Celestant.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Aleguzzler gargaunt? Thats an odd name

Please write it the correct way:

The Citadel™ Aleguzzler™ Gargant™.

 Manchu wrote:
GW is getting too much grief over this one. No less a source than J.R.R. Tolkien, in his later years, concluded that "orc" should be properly spelt "ork" for philological reasons. This only came to light in 1993 so turns out GW was ahead of the curve there. They are on solid ground with orruk, too. It's an apparent cognate of uruk, which is Black Speech for orc, not to mention the common stem órok. What's Tolkien got to do with Warhammer Fantasy? Well, he's the only reason we're talking about orcs in the first place. Now, ogors ... I got nothing for ogors ... but in a world of Stormcast Concussors, so be it!

You're completely missing the point as to why GW is getting grief over this. It isn't because of the word they chose to replace Orc, it's because they changed it in the first place. This is a symptom of the CHS saga, where they're renaming everything so they can slap a little ™ after it.

So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

Those blocky armor plates too like something from Power Rangers

I wonder, how those Black Orruks™ will look against Sigmarines, because of the scale creep

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

GW have always been slack about intellectual property. It tripped them up big time in the Chapter House case.

It costs about £1,000 to get a registered trademark, which GW could easily afford. They probably (correctly) think that no-one else is going to register the names that have chosen just to spite them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

GW have always been slack about intellectual property. It tripped them up big time in the Chapter House case.

It costs about £1,000 to get a registered trademark, which GW could easily afford. They probably (correctly) think that no-one else is going to register the names that have chosen just to spite them.

Anyone got UKP1000 handy?

I'll do the paper work!

I think the drake would look substantially better without wings. I wonder how easy it will be to model it like that.

"Roll a dice"?!?

And Roiling Thunderhead and Rain of Stars?

OK!

The rules for it seem very good against infantry but not good against monsters. The cavernous jaws and sweeping tail rule will have no effect against monsters and the breath attacks are best used against big units.

I think the drake is ok looking; however, I have a hard time justifying myself to pay over $100 for one model as a game piece. I would be too scare to transport expensive models to play in games outside of the house in fear of it breaking . I think I will stick to playing smaller "scale" fantasy games

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

I think the internet forums spread the idea or assume too much that the name changes were meant so that GW can protect its product. I might be in the minority, but I see the name changes for fluff reason. Spelling of names and sound of names change with time. So in the old world, we know them as Elf. In the new age they are now spelled as Aelf. Just like in our world, Aelf changed to Elf in English. I posted this on Warseer:

Fyreslayers - Fyre - fire in Danish and Scots (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyre#Old_English) / Fyr in Old English (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyr#Old_English)

Aelf - Elf in Old English was spelled as "Ælf" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%86lf) / another link - http://virtuallinguist.typepad.com/the_virtual_linguist/2012/08/alf_or_%C3%A6lf.html

Duardin - this was a bit harder to find if there was some inspiration for the name. Duardin itself did not seem to have an old language for its use. I decided to try searching for "Duard" and this is what i got - http://www.ourbabynamer.com/meaning-of-Duard.html - based on that site "Duard" is of English origin and means "wealthy guardian." With Dwarf stereotypes of loving gold and Games Workshop Ur-Gold, there might actually be some basis of past languages for GW calling the new age Dwarfs as Duardin...or I am just really stretching my imagination to find some basis for some of the names.

Edit: I just notice you posted in that thread also.

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

Because a paint company already owns the term "Sigmarite" and "Sigmarine". True story.

CragHack wrote:
Those blocky armor plates too like something from Power Rangers

I wonder, how those Black Orruks™ will look against Sigmarines, because of the scale creep

Black Orcs or a nob mob or whatever with the size, bulk and posture of IoB rat ogres. Hngh. I could go for a couple of those for my pirate Orcs or the 40k Orks I need to whip up into Gorkamorka/Kill Team shape.

PS: Now I need to ebay a ton of rat ogres and Grimgork and Ghazkull heads

 akai wrote:
I think the drake is ok looking; however, I have a hard time justifying myself to pay over $100 for one model as a game piece. I would be too scare to transport expensive models to play in games outside of the house in fear of it breaking . I think I will stick to playing smaller "scale" fantasy games

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

I think the internet forums spread the idea or assume too much that the name changes were meant so that GW can protect its product. I might be in the minority, but I see the name changes for fluff reason. Spelling of names and sound of names change with time. So in the old world, we know them as Elf. In the new age they are now spelled as Aelf. Just like in our world, Aelf changed to Elf in English. I posted this on Warseer:

Fyreslayers - Fyre - fire in Danish and Scots (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyre#Old_English) / Fyr in Old English (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyr#Old_English)

Aelf - Elf in Old English was spelled as "Ælf" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%86lf) / another link - http://virtuallinguist.typepad.com/the_virtual_linguist/2012/08/alf_or_%C3%A6lf.html

Duardin - this was a bit harder to find if there was some inspiration for the name. Duardin itself did not seem to have an old language for its use. I decided to try searching for "Duard" and this is what i got - http://www.ourbabynamer.com/meaning-of-Duard.html - based on that site "Duard" is of English origin and means "wealthy guardian." With Dwarf stereotypes of loving gold and Games Workshop Ur-Gold, there might actually be some basis of past languages for GW calling the new age Dwarfs as Duardin...or I am just really stretching my imagination to find some basis for some of the names.

Edit: I just notice you posted in that thread also.

GW is using many old english / old saxon words in AoS.

The last picture shown (with the reddish wings) makes it look a lot better, but if the armour is an integral part of the sculpt no way would I buy one.

Well, I wouldn't buy one anyway. 120 euro? You're havin' a larf.

It is a strange position to be in, when you can regard your Forgeworld vehicles and planes as good value compared to a plastic GW kit!

 Charles Rampant wrote:
It is a strange position to be in, when you can regard your Forgeworld vehicles and planes as good value compared to a plastic GW kit!

It's a position I believe you will soon get used to...

The wings are odd/off-putting due to the half dozen extra finger bones, and the armor is ugly and poorly thought out. But what's really getting me is the front legs - the joints are backwards. The thing has knees where its elbows should be, and the front limb knee pads just accentuate it.

It's literally like you asked a child to draw his first ever dragon based on memory of seeing one in a cartoon once.

Further supporting my theory that GW has suffered some very serious brain drain in their creative department. For every good looking model they've put out in the past few years, there have been several ugly kids toys with amateurishly bad design decisions (executed with great technical skill on the molding side, credit where credit's due).

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Screw the Stormcast stuff. I want Tzeentch news!!

+1!

Something has to be cooking somewhere...

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
The wings are odd/off-putting due to the half dozen extra finger bones, and the armor is ugly and poorly thought out. But what's really getting me is the front legs - the joints are backwards. The thing has knees where its elbows should be, and the front limb knee pads just accentuate it.

I don't mind the wings or armor, but now that you brought up the knees/elbow thing, I can't unsee it! The "fold" on the front left leg is getting me, too. I can't make sense of exactly what I'm looking at. I'm working on a SE army, but for $140 the centerpiece model really should be perfect.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Screw the Stormcast stuff. I want Tzeentch news!!

+1!

Something has to be cooking somewhere...

Cant wait for the Changebound Changesecrators

Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Chad Warden wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Screw the Stormcast stuff. I want Tzeentch news!!

+1!

Something has to be cooking somewhere...

Cant wait for the Changebound Changesecrators

Tzeentch Arcanites.

 akai wrote:
I might be in the minority, but I see the name changes for fluff reason.

I quite agree. Seems to me that renaming things is part of the overhaul of Fantasy, along with re-boxing kits and writing new rules. Seeing those orcs advertised as orruks, for example, may seem "off" to us but that is just because we have already got used to "orc" (courtesy of Professor Tolkien). Giving something a distinctive name is pretty clearly a means of strengthening the brand identity. This is probably also why GW is leaning in so hard with Stormcast; kind of like how SM are de facto mascots for 40k. This very likely explains why Stormcast are getting this release now, rather than GW moving on to say, Aelfs.

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Are they?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Are they?

From the angle we're seeing it at (which admittedly is not the best) then yes, it does appear to be correct and its legs have more in common with those found on the likes of equines and felines instead of reptiles.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Are they?

From the angle we're seeing it at (which admittedly is not the best) then yes, it does appear to be correct and its legs have more in common with those found on the likes of equines and felines instead of reptiles.

I'd be tempted to say that but the joint looks to be just a bit too high on the front legs to be that way. However, without a clear shot, I can't tell for sure.

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Lion? Don't think so. As someone who has owned a pet reptile, I'd have to disagree with you on that.



**Edit: My brother and I have just had a discussion about the neck armour and concluded that:

If you spend most of the time flying and slamming into your prey from above, you're not really going to need to lower your head that often, but you're also going to try and keep any injuries to the neck to a minimum. A lizard's underbelly is pretty squishy and vulnerable.

A lizard has to back away a bit to get at prey that is closer to it than the range of movement its neck will allow for. To me, that pose says it's just landed and is about to zap some foes and swipe at someone else nearby.

I'm getting used to its positions. Its standing up to roar/spit lightning. And I don't see the backward elbows/knees AT ALL, simply because those are his wrists.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Lion? Don't think so. As someone who has owned a pet reptile, I'd have to disagree with you on that.

Spoiler:

**Edit: My brother and I have just had a discussion about the neck armour and concluded that:

If you spend most of the time flying and slamming into your prey from above, you're not really going to need to lower your head that often, but you're also going to try and keep any injuries to the neck to a minimum. A lizard's underbelly is pretty squishy and vulnerable.

A lizard has to back away a bit to get at prey that is closer to it than the range of movement its neck will allow for. To me, that pose says it's just landed and is about to zap some foes and swipe at someone else nearby.

So if you're mostly above your prey you theorised looking down isn't common? Are you sure about that?

Not to mention the fact that one of his attacks is literally bending down and swallowing an enemy whole.

I think the realism issue with that attack is that he can swallow a dracothian guard whole. Let alone how many he can in a whole game. The realistic aspect of this beastie, like many others, is pretty mangled.

Maybe the rules designers were playing Hungry, Hungry Hippos with their kids the night before?

I love the overiding attitude (that GW must also love) that this thread seems to show...
"It"s a bit gak, but we'll buy it anyway. It's growing on us"

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
I love the overiding attitude (that GW must also love) that this thread seems to show...
"It"s a bit gak, but we'll buy it anyway. It's growing on us"

It tickles me too. Every release that doesn't meet universal acclaim (and, let's be fair, there have been a few recently) inevitably features at least one person saying "I don't like it, but if I spend another £50 on other kits to get the bits and do this, this and this to it, I think I can make it work."

Joyboozer wrote:

So if you're mostly above your prey you theorised looking down isn't common? Are you sure about that?

For god's sake. I said lower your head not look down. A creature with a long neck will not have the same range of movement as a human, will it?

See example pic


As for the eating people in one bite- it's fairly obvious that it'd have to change its stance for eating something a lot smaller than him to get good purchase on the target.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
I love the overiding attitude (that GW must also love) that this thread seems to show...
"It"s a bit gak, but we'll buy it anyway. It's growing on us"

I've actually been going the other way... I loved it at first glance, but like it less the more I look at it... I want to like it, because I like big, impressive dragon kits. But there are just too many flaws that could have been easily avoided.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haechi wrote:
I'm getting used to its positions. Its standing up to roar/spit lightning. And I don't see the backward elbows/knees AT ALL, simply because those are his wrists.

It's a bit hard to tell with the shoulder armour and the pic angle, but it looks like he has knees on his front legs, rather than elbows... so configured more like an Elephant than most other quadrapeds.

If they're meant to be his 'wrist' joints, the kneepads don't make any sense. As kneepads they a little hinky due to the spike on the bottom hitting his foot, but as wristguards they're completely wrong as they would prevent any upward/forwards movement of the joint.




-Edit - After going and looking at the Dracoth sprue, (and assuming the Drake is supposed to have more or less similar anatomy (other than the wings, obviously)) they do indeed appear to be wrists, with the Dracoth having the same issues with the 'knee' pads. Chalk it up as a prime example of designers going for what looks cool without any thought paid to functionality, I guess.

Bit more info on the Tempest Lords chamber from the Webstore blog.

WEDNESDAY 16 MARCH 2016
RSS
What’s a Tempest Lord then, eh?


Well, I’m glad you asked. A Tempest Lord, according to the fizzing, sparking room full of pure energy called Bookus-7 that governs our Publications department, is “A noble of a previous age, they were all lords and master tacticians. With foresight from a life of politics, they fight from the skies so they can look down on the foe. They know they’re worth a lot more than the foes they face, so they choose when to strike carefully. Each has to prove his worth in battle – this is almost like a tally of kills they have to achieve during each battle, and if they don't (or get 'killed' early) then this is a source of great shame. They’re really strict about enforcing this.”

They’re essentially really confident officers, expected to perform in a manner befitting of the Extremis Chamber – this means lots of Chaos slain.

Also, we like Bookus-7, he’s lovely.