Cap'n Facebeard wrote: I know this is the eternal moan, but OUCH on the pricetag for Frydaal. She costs half as much as an Arvus Lighter
Weird. In UK£, she's two-thirds of the price of an Arvus lighter. Is she more expensive in the UK than Aus, or is the Arvus more expensive in Aus than the UK?
Frydaal is $71 AUD
Arvus Lighter is $135 AUD
Why is a single model 71 AUD? That sounds horrible. Especially when she's half the price of a much larger model.
Why is a single model 71 AUD? That's sounds horrible. Especially when she's half the price of a much larger model.
Because the frog is well and truly boiled.
I'm sorry, but could you explain this colloquium to me? Thank you.
If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out. If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly bring it to a boil over time, it won't. Same bad results, but a lot harder to notice if done slowly, as small changes can be overlooked or rationalized. No clue on the origins though. Probably medieval.
Why is a single model 71 AUD? That's sounds horrible. Especially when she's half the price of a much larger model.
Because the frog is well and truly boiled.
I'm sorry, but could you explain this colloquium to me? Thank you.
If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out. If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly bring it to a boil over time, it won't. Same bad results, but a lot harder to notice if done slowly, as small changes can be overlooked or rationalized. No clue on the origins though. Probably medieval.
Why is a single model 71 AUD? That's sounds horrible. Especially when she's half the price of a much larger model.
Because the frog is well and truly boiled.
I'm sorry, but could you explain this colloquium to me? Thank you.
If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out. If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly bring it to a boil over time, it won't. Same bad results, but a lot harder to notice if done slowly, as small changes can be overlooked or rationalized. No clue on the origins though. Probably medieval.
Apparently multiple real life experiments were conducted in the 19th century, but it's not clear what came first, the experiment or the metaphor
I think the Empire MTO will probably be too pricey for me at this time, might just get myself the classic pegasus as a painting/nostalgia project.
New Cathay rumours from Valrak (anything in brackets is supposition from me) -
* Heavy infantry unit that can be equipped with swords and shields or spears (Jade Warriors maybe? Might be halberds rather than spears?)
* Heavy cavalry unit with spears (Jade Lancers presumably?)
* Light infantry unit with bows or crossbows (not sure here, presumably peasants but I don't think they could have crossbows in TW3?)
* Terracotta Sentinel
* Lord mounted on a dragon.
* Character on a winged horse (a Great Longma presumably?)
*Hot air balloon (Sky lantern or Sky Junk?)
Hopefully there's a few more troop units, but I can see this being wave 1 with expansion later.
The thing is, any Cathay rumours can just list off the units from Total War and probably be "accurate" - its the details that matter. Like a "lord on dragon" seems deeply unlikely unless they're married.
Yeah I thought the whole point was the dragons were in charge so no dragon riding. Unless its going to be like the Sphinx and Mage in Lumineth (and then I REALLY hope its better posed because that model really feels like someone just stuck 2 models that were originally designed on their own as one)
And yeah you can 100% just list off the TW Warhammer units because GW worked with CA on those. There's every chance we'll see most of their roster (in time) appear as models when a Cathay release comes.
Valrak often gets details like that wrong. Despite being a major presence in the GW infosphere the dude has all the awareness of a normie casual when it comes to things outsude of space marines. So him not knowing that the lords are dragons rather than ride on dragons is fully on brand for him.
The Phazer wrote: New Cathay rumours from Valrak (anything in brackets is supposition from me) -
* Heavy infantry unit that can be equipped with swords and shields or spears (Jade Warriors maybe? Might be halberds rather than spears?)
* Heavy cavalry unit with spears (Jade Lancers presumably?)
* Light infantry unit with bows or crossbows (not sure here, presumably peasants but I don't think they could have crossbows in TW3?)
* Terracotta Sentinel
* Lord mounted on a dragon.
* Character on a winged horse (a Great Longma presumably?)
*Hot air balloon (Sky lantern or Sky Junk?)
Hopefully there's a few more troop units, but I can see this being wave 1 with expansion later.
Having just watched that part of the video, he doesn't say "lord mounted on a dragon", what he says is there will be a "dragon / lord"
Well I wouldn't take TW3 as set in a stone for unit roster.
Now, as Cathay isnt often counted as part of the Old World I think it is themed more like Military Expedition from Cathay. So it is probably more elite Human army rather then some rabble with pitchforks which is why we probably won't see any peasants but more of an auxiliary units.
And any dragons we see are very likely special characters only.
pgmason wrote: Yeah, Lord on Dragon sounds wrong. Much more likely to be a Lord who is a Dragon, or dragon and human forms of the same character.
Or alternatively, a dragon riding a human. Imagine if the Cathay Dragons are the size of cats, and they are only thought of as big through illusion magic and really good propaganda.
Daba wrote: Do the dragons have a transformation gimmick in TWW? Would that be replicated on tabletop?
The Cathay Dragons can
As for in game, in Age of Sigmar right now Morathi has had a transformation ability to move between her humanoid and snake-goddess forms. In the past GW even did mounted horseback leaders and on-foot versions for the rules. So I could easily see them doing the Cathay dragons with two forms in the box
As for in game, in Age of Sigmar right now Morathi has had a transformation ability to move between her humanoid and snake-goddess forms.
Not since 2nd Ed. Now you just use both models at the same time as in lore she split the snake form off from her when she ascended into Morathi-Khaine.
I dread the price of the Wagon, being a Forge Wold resin piece now, but I'll get one for sure. Have it been metal and regular MTO model (or better, regular release) I would have though about getting two, but that's out the window now. I want that Griffon and Pegasus so bad too! And don't need any more heroes thankfully so I can skip all the rest!
I just want that new engineer model....a shame and strange decision that a brand new hand sculpted miniature is being stuck to what'll no doubt be a very expensive made-to-order kit rather than being an ordinary release.
Mentlegen324 wrote: I just want that new engineer model....a shame and strange decision that a brand new hand sculpted miniature is being stuck to what'll no doubt be a very expensive made-to-order kit rather than being an ordinary release.
Hopefully the Pigeon bomb will be a separate model.
I would just honestly get War Altar and some militia and convert it into War Wagon. You would probably get 2 of those for price of one legimate war wagon.
Mentlegen324 wrote: I just want that new engineer model....a shame and strange decision that a brand new hand sculpted miniature is being stuck to what'll no doubt be a very expensive made-to-order kit rather than being an ordinary release.
I'm the opposite, I want the War Wagon but resent having the (no doubt already excessive) cost inflated by the engineer being lumped in with it
I am going to assume the Pegasus and Griffon are £50 each, like the mto metal oldhammer giant and wyvern, and the war wagon is much closer to (or even over) £100?
Sotahullu wrote: I would just honestly get War Altar and some militia and convert it into War Wagon. You would probably get 2 of those for price of one legimate war wagon.
The War Altar is €62.50/$80, so unlikely. Even with 3d printing some of the components it wouldn't be a good basis for conversion in terms of savings--you'd be better off looking for an alternate 3d print altogether or a complete scratch-build (which wouldn't be that difficult).
Mentlegen324 wrote: I just want that new engineer model....a shame and strange decision that a brand new hand sculpted miniature is being stuck to what'll no doubt be a very expensive made-to-order kit rather than being an ordinary release.
You could always see if you can get a 'spare' engineer from someone that's buying multiple war wagons.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The Empire made to order still isn't up? Saturday Feb 1 I guess?
"These products will be available Made to Order from 10am local time Saturday 1st of February 2025, through to 6pm GMT on Sunday the 9th of February, and can take up to 180 days to ship."
Mentlegen324 wrote: I just want that new engineer model....a shame and strange decision that a brand new hand sculpted miniature is being stuck to what'll no doubt be a very expensive made-to-order kit rather than being an ordinary release.
You could always see if you can get a 'spare' engineer from someone that's buying multiple war wagons.
I'm gonna get some War Wagons anyway, but I'm sure I still have my von Zeppel steam tank conversion kit floating around - it basically was just a platform to put the War Wagon guys on a Steam Tank!
Mentlegen324 wrote: I just want that new engineer model....a shame and strange decision that a brand new hand sculpted miniature is being stuck to what'll no doubt be a very expensive made-to-order kit rather than being an ordinary release.
If I get 3, I won’t need all 3 and I’ll just mail you one if you cover mailing cost.
The decision to bundle the two together is honestly baffling, I can only assume they did it because they didn't think the moulds would last if they didn't find a way to make the War Wagon less attractive
Matt.Kingsley wrote: The decision to bundle the two together is honestly baffling, I can only assume they did it because they didn't think the moulds would last if they didn't find a way to make the War Wagon less attractive
They could have even used it as an opportunity to see how well brand new hand-sculpted miniatures would do. I think there's more charm and sense of life to hand sculpted miniatures, It could have been touted as a special thing that they'd done something in that way again rather than locking it being an absurd £80 purchase.
Having wanted a war wagon for nearly 30 years I've succumbed, but it was made slightly less egregious by getting a £10 webstore voucher by email yesterday, so it was effectively £70 not £80 for me. I quite like the new engineer too (and I wanted another engineer) so that helped.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: The decision to bundle the two together is honestly baffling, I can only assume they did it because they didn't think the moulds would last if they didn't find a way to make the War Wagon less attractive
Not really though; you can get the old plastic engineer if you want one, and the War Wagon can be either just the War Wagon or an option for an engineer. Makes sense that the set comes with one.
I also got a voucher a couple weeks ago for 20$ (CAD), and was expiring on Monday. Was crossing my fingers for the MTO to come soon enough so I could use it!
I got the Wagon, the Pegasus and the General on Griffon. A second Wagon would have been nice for conversion and stuff (like the one on steam tank), but not at that price. One will be enough to fill that nostalgia!
Looks like the Wave 1 Empire releases are finally up for pre-order on the Aussie webstore! And there was much rejoicing.
Disappointed that the infantry are only being sold in big pricey batches, though, which is a general problem I have with a lot of GW offerings in the last few years. They always seem to sell double the number I need at twice the price.
(I also received one of those vouchers and am disconcerted that GW is spontaneously offering free money all of a sudden. That ain't natural. There's probably a daemon involved.)
Zenithfleet wrote: Looks like the Wave 1 Empire releases are finally up for pre-order on the Aussie webstore! And there was much rejoicing.
Disappointed that the infantry are only being sold in big pricey batches, though, which is a general problem I have with a lot of GW offerings in the last few years. They always seem to sell double the number I need at twice the price.
(I also received one of those vouchers and am disconcerted that GW is spontaneously offering free money all of a sudden. That ain't natural. There's probably a daemon involved.)
In some cases, the increasing of infantry in the boxes has lessened the price per model. Last time I bought flagellants (one year ago, the very purchase that earned me my discount voucher!) they were £20 for 10, now they're £45 for 30. Some small benefit to selling in bulk, and who ever used a unit of just 10 in Fantasy?
Zenithfleet wrote: (I also received one of those vouchers and am disconcerted that GW is spontaneously offering free money all of a sudden. That ain't natural. There's probably a daemon involved.)
From the last few financial reports GW's sales are up significantly, but their sales via the GW website have been consistently dropping since the redesign disaster - it really did have a significant negative effect on people buying from it. It seems like there is limited appetite from the CEO to spend significant more money on trying to fix it given how much they have burned on it so far, so the web store team are absolutely desperate to get sales going again - hence all the discount vouchers recently...
Zenithfleet wrote: Looks like the Wave 1 Empire releases are finally up for pre-order on the Aussie webstore! And there was much rejoicing.
Disappointed that the infantry are only being sold in big pricey batches, though, which is a general problem I have with a lot of GW offerings in the last few years. They always seem to sell double the number I need at twice the price.
(I also received one of those vouchers and am disconcerted that GW is spontaneously offering free money all of a sudden. That ain't natural. There's probably a daemon involved.)
In some cases, the increasing of infantry in the boxes has lessened the price per model. Last time I bought flagellants (one year ago, the very purchase that earned me my discount voucher!) they were £20 for 10, now they're £45 for 30. Some small benefit to selling in bulk, and who ever used a unit of just 10 in Fantasy?
Fair enough. In my case, even if there's a saving when buying in bulk, I don't have the disposable income to do so. I need those small slow-grow options even if they add up to be more expensive overall. I mourn the loss of blister packs for that reason. May I remind you that I'm paying Australian prices!
Besides, the minis aren't necessarily going to be used for Fantasy, or for whatever other game they're produced for. I'd love some of those Hobbit Goblins (the pasty morlock-type ones) but I don't need 36 of them and nobody seems to onsell them in smaller quantities. In the specific case of the Empire releases, half the contents of the Empire Free Company Militia box would be sufficient for my Mordheim needs.
Zenithfleet wrote: (I also received one of those vouchers and am disconcerted that GW is spontaneously offering free money all of a sudden. That ain't natural. There's probably a daemon involved.)
From the last few financial reports GW's sales are up significantly, but their sales via the GW website have been consistently dropping since the redesign disaster - it really did have a significant negative effect on people buying from it. It seems like there is limited appetite from the CEO to spend significant more money on trying to fix it given how much they have burned on it so far, so the web store team are absolutely desperate to get sales going again - hence all the discount vouchers recently...
That makes a lot of sense, but it's the first time I've heard about it (not that I've been in the loop much). Would you have a link to more details?
Zenithfleet wrote: (I also received one of those vouchers and am disconcerted that GW is spontaneously offering free money all of a sudden. That ain't natural. There's probably a daemon involved.)
From the last few financial reports GW's sales are up significantly, but their sales via the GW website have been consistently dropping since the redesign disaster - it really did have a significant negative effect on people buying from it. It seems like there is limited appetite from the CEO to spend significant more money on trying to fix it given how much they have burned on it so far, so the web store team are absolutely desperate to get sales going again - hence all the discount vouchers recently...
Makes sense - the new website isn't as good as the old one. Also getting rid of things like the paint colour suggestions likely hit people making casual purchases of paint alongside the models (esp since paint is one of the things that isn't that heavily discounted outside of the GW website).
Heck the new site is still hiding a LOT of games and factions from sale - if you're into AT or AI or such you have to go hunting through menus to find them.
Meanwhile browsing is just more painful than it used to be.
The problem is customers who disliked the change and went elsewhere have likely found cheaper 3rd party sites and once people have made that change they are gone. They won't come back to the GW website save for vouchers, discounts, exclusive products and so forth. So turning around the sales is likely going to be a very slow process. That is unless GW starts doing 15-20% discounts to match 3rd parties
And I don't know for other non-english languages, but in french the new website is still full of big translation error and nonsense which should have been corrected week 1 at the latest.
This isn't something super new, I remember getting one a few years back. My mom ordered warhammer for someone last year and got one as well, and sent it to me. Though I sadly didn't use it before it expired.
pgmason wrote: Having wanted a war wagon for nearly 30 years I've succumbed, but it was made slightly less egregious by getting a £10 webstore voucher by email yesterday, so it was effectively £70 not £80 for me. I quite like the new engineer too (and I wanted another engineer) so that helped.
I'll never understand why GW made a plastic steam tank, 2 wizard wagons and a priest wagon instead of at least one war wagon in there. WWs are more common and I can see people taking more than one. All the others are rare to unique and don't really fit the 'ordinary joe' vibe of the Empire army.
Zenithfleet wrote: (I also received one of those vouchers and am disconcerted that GW is spontaneously offering free money all of a sudden. That ain't natural. There's probably a daemon involved.)
From the last few financial reports GW's sales are up significantly, but their sales via the GW website have been consistently dropping since the redesign disaster - it really did have a significant negative effect on people buying from it. It seems like there is limited appetite from the CEO to spend significant more money on trying to fix it given how much they have burned on it so far, so the web store team are absolutely desperate to get sales going again - hence all the discount vouchers recently...
The webstore is a mess, online exclusive SKUs (like FWHH) are chronically out of stock or unavailable and prices are too high. For me, pricing from GW direct has hit the tolerance ceiling and if I can't get an item from a 3rd party discounter, I just won't buy it.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I'll never understand why GW made a plastic steam tank, 2 wizard wagons and a priest wagon instead of at least one war wagon in there. WWs are more common and I can see people taking more than one. All the others are rare to unique and don't really fit the 'ordinary joe' vibe of the Empire army.
Because the War Wagon wasn't in the 8th edition Empire book and updated kits don't sell as well as something new.
That being said, with the way the 0-1 choice War Altar was built off of the wizard wagons, it seems like it would have been an easy kill to make a War Wagon variant that could have sold more. I guess the biggest question would be why it wasn't in the list.
RustyNumber wrote: It'd be cool if Cathay had a more realistic war wagon type unit, more of a high sided cart with more infantry in it rather than a land-hulk.
Closest thing their roster has is the Sky-Junk, though that's much more akin to a floating artillery and missile troop platform.
Ooooh! I cannot wait to see the full Seaguard list in the Arcane Journal. I am going to need to make at least a small force of Seaguard, Skycutters, Bolt Throwers, Shadow Warriors, and Reavers. It's just a requirement at this point.
the merwyrm is a gorgeous model before. somehow have never seen it before, but that's a really compelling piece— definitely the most tempting thing that old world sea elves have. makes me want to start an army just to justify it
GaroRobe wrote: Im shocked about all the complaining I’m seeing online
People either hate the model or hate that it’s with high elves
I think it looks great and the merwyrms appear in HE lore
When did the merwyrm first show up? Was it Storm of Chaos in 6th edition?
I remember it having an army list entry, but no model. You had to kitbash one yourself out of a dragon kit. They had an example. It was blue.
Put me in the "don't like the model" category, but that might be because I still picture it as looking like that kitbash--a classic sinewy Warhammer dragon except watery.
That said it DID have a long period of being either a generic monster or (in the AoS days) being in "destruction" grand alliance. So its bounced around a bit.
Honestly HE is a great spot - they already have dragons, lions, phonenix and such so a huge undersea wyrm is ideal for them
I'm not a big fan of the model personally - I always envisioned a more traditional sea serpent type monster. I like the concept though so I may look for a good proxy.
That said it DID have a long period of being either a generic monster or (in the AoS days) being in "destruction" grand alliance. So its bounced around a bit.
Honestly HE is a great spot - they already have dragons, lions, phonenix and such so a huge undersea wyrm is ideal for them
imo, it helps He feel more like the proper atlantis sea elves they're supposed to be, rather than generic high elves. would love to see something like this pop up for AOS's sea elves
GaroRobe wrote: Im shocked about all the complaining I’m seeing online
People either hate the model or hate that it’s with high elves
I think it looks great and the merwyrms appear in HE lore
Having had high elves and the merwyrm in the past, i can understand what they say. It really doesn't fit the high elf style. It looks far more like a dark elf slave monster or something that should have been reimagined for the deepkin.
GaroRobe wrote: Im shocked about all the complaining I’m seeing online
People either hate the model or hate that it’s with high elves
I think it looks great and the merwyrms appear in HE lore
Having had high elves and the merwyrm in the past, i can understand what they say. It really doesn't fit the high elf style. It looks far more like a dark elf slave monster or something that should have been reimagined for the deepkin.
One of the most baffling things when this model was part of AoS was that it never became part of the Idoneth army. Almost the perfect choice for FW to put the model into Idoneth and it never happened.
GaroRobe wrote: Im shocked about all the complaining I’m seeing online
People either hate the model or hate that it’s with high elves
I think it looks great and the merwyrms appear in HE lore
Don't know if the writers of the SoC list of the Sea Guard had something like this model in their minds. I'd guess it was more the Sea Dragons the Dark Elves used in Man'O'War.
The Trish fish looks more like a really nasty sea-dwelling beast than a dragon. That's fine, though - it's a gorgeous model. It's just not a creature you would expect in a HE army. But I'm okay with that, no need for 'hate'.
GaroRobe wrote: Im shocked about all the complaining I’m seeing online
People either hate the model or hate that it’s with high elves
I think it looks great and the merwyrms appear in HE lore
Having had high elves and the merwyrm in the past, i can understand what they say. It really doesn't fit the high elf style. It looks far more like a dark elf slave monster or something that should have been reimagined for the deepkin.
One of the most baffling things when this model was part of AoS was that it never became part of the Idoneth army. Almost the perfect choice for FW to put the model into Idoneth and it never happened.
Idoneth need more weird stuff like this, anyway. the pitch is "deep sea elves", but all of the fish in Idoneth are too normal to be deep sea fish. in terms of bespoke models, we've got sharks, eels, and turtles, but true deep sea fish are bizarre and ugly, and the merwyrm definitely has more of that vibe to it
I love the merwyrm concept and the model but I don't think it fits particularly well with the high elf range. I agree with Inquisitor Gideon, it would certainly fit more neatly into the dark elf range. It would make a good alternative to the karybdis.
Absolutely love this model. I was sad, when I couldn’t get it anymore, now it will make a great display piece. Don’t really care about HElves, so the merwyrm in my hands won’t see the tabletop.
But I’m just happy, that Warhammer Forge stuff is slowly climbing back out of the grave.
Spined beast, preyton, ettin, mournghul and a bunch of other cool stuff would make for a great comeback
RustyNumber wrote: Bit of a Flanderisation isn't it? "HElves can only have creatures aiding them if they're majestic and regal looking."
With that said, a model that looks like it's coming out from the shallows or rampaging would be better than this ones pose.
That's the thing; one if the many, many reasons why Ulthuan is a difficult place to attack is the profusion of sea monsters that guard its coast. High Elves have had alliances with undersea creatures in the lore for ages.
RustyNumber wrote: Bit of a Flanderisation isn't it? "HElves can only have creatures aiding them if they're majestic and regal looking."
Not really. It's a design choice. I'd be fine with pretty elves surrounded by horrific monsters if that was a consistent motif. If the phoenix model was a half undead ghoul bird and the dragons looked like Galrauch or Tamrukhan's toad dragon and the banners of the elves depicted these monstrosities, that would be a great look for the army. However it currently sticks out in a way that I don't find pleasing.
I'd prefer something similar to this, without the watery base, maybe coiled up like the Tyranid Trygon.
RustyNumber wrote: Bit of a Flanderisation isn't it? "HElves can only have creatures aiding them if they're majestic and regal looking."
With that said, a model that looks like it's coming out from the shallows or rampaging would be better than this ones pose.
It's an interesting point - we had the same thing with "wait elves can't use huge hammers in battle that's a dwarf thing" when the Lumineth got their hammer warriors.
Sometimes the concepts of what an army should be an get a very narrow lens. It's not helped by the fact that many fantasy and scifi armies often follow very specific design elements so that they really stand out from each other on the battlefield. A hyper amount of variation is actually what most of us expect.
Meanwhile if you compare soldiers of armies in the real world from nations of comparable technology levels you often see very similar styling and designs going on with both sides. Furthermore whilst you can see design similarities in things like vehicles its more driven by "these were all made by the same factory/design team" and "they use the same common parts to keep it easy to support"; but otherwise they aren't afraid of things looking different.
It's actually interesting in Warhammer fantasy that you don't get elves running around with dwarven hammers and cannons; or dwarves with tamed dragons and griffons and so forth.
That is also extends to the wildlife of the setting is doubly interesting. The idea that elves would only choose sleek, elegant and "pretty" animals/beasts to fight alongside whilst only "dark" and evil elves would choose the chunky more brutal looking ones is certainly easy to see from the design language of each faction; however at the same time there's no real reason High Elves wouldn't tame an "ugly" beast if it was within their lands and amenable to being tamed/convinced to fight for them.
I got a shipping notice for my Empire MTO stuff last night... I only bought one War Wagon along with all the metals, guess they stocked up in anticipation.
Prometheum5 wrote: I got a shipping notice for my Empire MTO stuff last night... I only bought one War Wagon along with all the metals, guess they stocked up in anticipation.
They always do that. Been doing it since the very first middle-earth mto.
Same, my order is on the way already too. Seems standard with MTO from the past few times I bought some. Only one instance were it took near the 180 days limit with the Marauder Giant, otherwise it always looked like they had everything in stock.
SnotlingPimpWagon wrote: Absolutely love this model. I was sad, when I couldn’t get it anymore, now it will make a great display piece. Don’t really care about HElves, so the merwyrm in my hands won’t see the tabletop.
But I’m just happy, that Warhammer Forge stuff is slowly climbing back out of the grave.
Spined beast, preyton, ettin, mournghul and a bunch of other cool stuff would make for a great comeback
I could see the Beastmen getting the Preyton in their Journal.
Overread wrote: It's actually interesting in Warhammer fantasy that you don't get elves running around with dwarven hammers and cannons; or dwarves with tamed dragons and griffons and so forth.
Back in the day - prior to sixth edition - pretty much every army could drag along whatever monsters they wanted (short of, I think, hydras and gorgons being restricted to dark elves?). At the end of fifth GW was almost encouraging people to dilute their army identity by pushing Dogs of War. And then Storm of Magic gave people extra points only to spend on big monsters...
Skywave wrote: Same, my order is on the way already too. Seems standard with MTO from the past few times I bought some. Only one instance were it took near the 180 days limit with the Marauder Giant, otherwise it always looked like they had everything in stock.
Yeah, it's been nice to get the last few MTOs pretty much immediately after waiting way past the 180 days for the first TOW Bret/TK round and the full lead time for the Marauder Giant wave.
I also got my Empire MTO email yesterday. I could only justify buying the Commanders of the Empire. Very happy it's en route since it took the whole 180 day mark for me to get my MTO Rogue Trader reprint.
Shakalooloo wrote: Back in the day - prior to sixth edition - pretty much every army could drag along whatever monsters they wanted (short of, I think, hydras and gorgons being restricted to dark elves?). At the end of fifth GW was almost encouraging people to dilute their army identity by pushing Dogs of War. And then Storm of Magic gave people extra points only to spend on big monsters...
Yep. Back in 5th edition I could put a Bretonnian General on an Emperor Dragon. So I did.
I've only ever collected Bretonnia, so for the past 20 years I've had a beautiful centrepiece dragon and nothing to do with it. Oh well. It's still beautiful.
Shakalooloo wrote: Back in the day - prior to sixth edition - pretty much every army could drag along whatever monsters they wanted (short of, I think, hydras and gorgons being restricted to dark elves?). At the end of fifth GW was almost encouraging people to dilute their army identity by pushing Dogs of War. And then Storm of Magic gave people extra points only to spend on big monsters...
Yep. Back in 5th edition I could put a Bretonnian General on an Emperor Dragon. So I did.
But did you do it in 1,500pt games where almost nothing could stand up to it (especially with the Tress)?
Shakalooloo wrote: Back in the day - prior to sixth edition - pretty much every army could drag along whatever monsters they wanted (short of, I think, hydras and gorgons being restricted to dark elves?). At the end of fifth GW was almost encouraging people to dilute their army identity by pushing Dogs of War. And then Storm of Magic gave people extra points only to spend on big monsters...
Yep. Back in 5th edition I could put a Bretonnian General on an Emperor Dragon. So I did.
But did you do it in 1,500pt games where almost nothing could stand up to it (especially with the Tress)?
The Emperor Dragon alone was 750 points, so not useable in a 1500 point force.
There is a fine line between adhering to a theme, and making something 2 dimensional because you're defining it ONLY by that theme.
No culture is that simple.
Put it this way, elegant beasts, only using swords, only having conical helmets etc, is to elves what ponchos and sombreros are to mexicans, or cowboy hats and spurs for the US.
Verisimilitude requires both consistent motifs and themes AND unique and different ones.
Return_to_Bretonnia wrote: Yep. Back in 5th edition I could put a Bretonnian General on an Emperor Dragon. So I did.
But did you do it in 1,500pt games where almost nothing could stand up to it (especially with the Tress)?
The Emperor Dragon alone was 750 points, so not useable in a 1500 point force.
I never played much, so I honestly can't remember how many points it was. I just remember that in one of my few games, the Emperor Dragon was somehow destroyed in one turn by my friend's Verminlord. That stung.
Shakalooloo wrote: Back in the day - prior to sixth edition - pretty much every army could drag along whatever monsters they wanted (short of, I think, hydras and gorgons being restricted to dark elves?). At the end of fifth GW was almost encouraging people to dilute their army identity by pushing Dogs of War. And then Storm of Magic gave people extra points only to spend on big monsters...
Yep. Back in 5th edition I could put a Bretonnian General on an Emperor Dragon. So I did.
But did you do it in 1,500pt games where almost nothing could stand up to it (especially with the Tress)?
The Emperor Dragon alone was 750 points, so not useable in a 1500 point force.
Verminlords couldn't choose Magic Items, but they had something like 7 WS8 S8 attacks causing D3 wounds, so it was possible though unlikely to take down an Emp in one turn (4s to hit, 4s to wound, no save).
That is also extends to the wildlife of the setting is doubly interesting. The idea that elves would only choose sleek, elegant and "pretty" animals/beasts to fight alongside whilst only "dark" and evil elves would choose the chunky more brutal looking ones is certainly easy to see from the design language of each faction; however at the same time there's no real reason High Elves wouldn't tame an "ugly" beast if it was within their lands and amenable to being tamed/convinced to fight for them.
When I see the ugly nasty creature fighting for noblebright elves I just assume they're goading the thing, either with force or magic.
When I see the ugly nasty creature fighting for noblebright elves I just assume they're goading the thing, either with force or magic.
That's actually exactly what is happening, and previous editions included this as a game mechanic. The Merwyrm is bound by Mages and pressed to fight against its will.
There are no nice Elves.
When I see the ugly nasty creature fighting for noblebright elves I just assume they're goading the thing, either with force or magic.
That's actually exactly what is happening, and previous editions included this as a game mechanic. The Merwyrm is bound by Mages and pressed to fight against its will.
There are no nice Elves.
Indeed. At least the Dark Elves are honest about it.
Though, I am immensely disappointed that several of the crew weapons are multi-piece, such as just a single prong of the man-catcher...
I have two of the mancatcher guys and the Hochland long rifle guy when I was buying bits a la carte when Mordheim was new. The long rifle was for my Marienburger warband the mancatchers were for D&D henchmen (that I still haven't gotten around to painting).
Though, I am immensely disappointed that several of the crew weapons are multi-piece, such as just a single prong of the man-catcher...
I have two of the mancatcher guys and the Hochland long rifle guy when I was buying bits a la carte when Mordheim was new. The long rifle was for my Marienburger warband the mancatchers were for D&D henchmen (that I still haven't gotten around to painting).
I have them in metal from when they were re-released in 6th as the Steam Tank Fighting Platform, and they were all single-piece. I am confused as to why they would need to change that for the resin versions.
Presumably due to the difference in materials and manufacturing process. Metal miniatures are spun in a mould to push the air out, resins are poured and then degassed to release the air inside the resin. Perhaps they couldn't avoid bubbles if it had remained in one piece. I'm sure they would tested it and not just done it for giggles.
My war wagon was purchased in the 90s, so I can't recall how many pieces the crew were in. But I remember them being in one piece. There's probably a catalogue image somewhere that can be checked.
Fayric wrote: No Seaguard in first wave?
I suppose the second wave will come sooner rather than later, like they did wih the Empire release.
Now I just have to figure out if I need to ad 30 swordmasters to the 20 IoB masters I already got.
Aren't Seaguard just combining archers + spearmen together into one unit? Or did they change that.
The 32 sizes are crappy, but it makes sense since the old boxes were 16. Still, 16 in a unit is a weird choice when it could have been 20 (4 per sprue, just give 5 sprues instead of 4), especially with the inevitable price increase.
Nothing for me with the HE as I don't collect or play them, but still interested to see what the potential made to order could be here. I love older minis so there might be something for me there potentially, depending on what is released!
Fayric wrote: No Seaguard in first wave?
I suppose the second wave will come sooner rather than later, like they did wih the Empire release.
Now I just have to figure out if I need to ad 30 swordmasters to the 20 IoB masters I already got.
Aren't Seaguard just combining archers + spearmen together into one unit? Or did they change that.
The 32 sizes are crappy, but it makes sense since the old boxes were 16. Still, 16 in a unit is a weird choice when it could have been 20 (4 per sprue, just give 5 sprues instead of 4), especially with the inevitable price increase.
The sprues are from back when 4-wide was the standard for all units so a block of 16 got the maximum rank bonus.
Fayric wrote: No Seaguard in first wave?
I suppose the second wave will come sooner rather than later, like they did wih the Empire release.
Now I just have to figure out if I need to ad 30 swordmasters to the 20 IoB masters I already got.
Aren't Seaguard just combining archers + spearmen together into one unit? Or did they change that.
The 32 sizes are crappy, but it makes sense since the old boxes were 16. Still, 16 in a unit is a weird choice when it could have been 20 (4 per sprue, just give 5 sprues instead of 4), especially with the inevitable price increase.
Seaguard have both bows and spears on each model.
The spearman box does actually come with bows that go on their backs to make them, however GW said they’d release actual dedicated Seaguard models with lothern iconography based on the IoB ones.
We're down to Wood Elves and Beastmen, and we've seen an official Beastmen preview - I wouldn't necessarily take a random eBay listing as evidence of which is next.
They were originally released by FW for Storm of Magic back around 2011-2012. Hopefully we'll continue to see the rest of the FW Fantasy minis return, if they've brought these back.
I don't recognize the one in the middle, most of the other mid-2000s Wood Elf characters are pretty well etched into my brain at this point, so that's a bit surprising. Based on the armour, I guess she was paired with the horned archer?
As for the High Elves MTO, my money would be on the two trios of heroes and mages that came out in 2005. Anything goes, but the older mounted heroes feel a bit too far gone to bother bringing them back. I wouldn't expect to see any characters returning, even as more flavourful alternate sculpts to generic profiles, though if anyone was to make a surprise and brief return, it'd be Prince Althran riding in on all the love for Island of Blood
I don't recognize the one in the middle, most of the other mid-2000s Wood Elf characters are pretty well etched into my brain at this point, so that's a bit surprising. Based on the armour, I guess she was paired with the horned archer?
I've no idea when she was released but she's pictured in the 8E Army Book. Possibly a post-6E release though, maybe an off-book release or for a campaign.
I like the frogs, gives the game character and flavor. Reminds me of the GW of old before it went public. This is missing from most of its other games today, namely 40K. It’s how I’m recruiting new players to play it - play this over soulless 40Klol.
Lord Damocles wrote: 'We're focusing on different characters. Here's a returning character' is a true GWism.
“We’re focusing on the characters who aren’t in AoS” is probably the accurate translation…
I mean, while true for High Elves, it's not as true for the rest of the factions. I think it's more that GWdoes want to play around with new characters instead of just bringing back all the old ones that would have been around at the time. That said, they even mention that we might see Teclis down the line when they touch of The Great War.
They’d have to, as it was his experiences there that lead to the Colleges of Magic, that mankind might better harness the Winds of Magic to protect itself.
Yep just take what they previewed at LVO and subtract what’s going up on preorder on Saturday. I think they might do a MTO wave too (3rd wave) but that might be a little down the line.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: They’d have to, as it was his experiences there that lead to the Colleges of Magic, that mankind might better harness the Winds of Magic to protect itself.
Or restrict them - which remains the view of some in the Colleges and beyond.
Isn't Alarielle's mother still Everqueen at the moment?
Interesting seeing a different version of High Elves we saw in 8th versus now.
Don't know if I like them retconning the High Elf presence in the Old World from 'leave en masse after the War of the Beard' to still holding a number of strategic islands off Bretonnia and even a castle on the Bretonnian mainland until the Great War against Chaos. Kinda undermines the tragedy of the war of the beard from an Elven perspective and also the theme of passing on those lands to the humans as the ancient races fade in power. Elves are less mysterious outsiders of the humans if they're literally living just off the coast and controlling the trade routes, as opposed to WHFB when there might be a few hundred across all the Empire in trading enclaves.
Also funny to see them do the whole pre-amble about only focusing on the Old World when we're getting Cathay. Either it's going to be a very similar idea to these Elven Sea Guard or they're going to have to break away from the sole Old World focus.
Londinium wrote: Also funny to see them do the whole pre-amble about only focusing on the Old World when we're getting Cathay. Either it's going to be a very similar idea to these Elven Sea Guard or they're going to have to break away from the sole Old World focus.
Not that it means anything in terms of how it will translate into Old World lore, but in TW3, armed trade caravans are a key feature in Cathay campaign mechanics. Chaos Dwarves have the same feature as well, but they obviously go to less savory places.
That's GW's macguffin for introducing both factions, when/if they do introduce them.
Interesting seeing a different version of High Elves we saw in 8th versus now.
Don't know if I like them retconning the High Elf presence in the Old World from 'leave en masse after the War of the Beard' to still holding a number of strategic islands off Bretonnia and even a castle on the Bretonnian mainland until the Great War against Chaos. Kinda undermines the tragedy of the war of the beard from an Elven perspective and also the theme of passing on those lands to the humans as the ancient races fade in power. Elves are less mysterious outsiders of the humans if they're literally living just off the coast and controlling the trade routes, as opposed to WHFB when there might be a few hundred across all the Empire in trading enclaves.
Also funny to see them do the whole pre-amble about only focusing on the Old World when we're getting Cathay. Either it's going to be a very similar idea to these Elven Sea Guard or they're going to have to break away from the sole Old World focus.
I'm pretty sure the Bretonnian enclaves have been mentioned in previous High Elf Army books. If I can find mine, I'll check again.
I mean, I never got the impression they pulled all the way out of the old world after the war of the beard. Otherwise why would they accept HE help during the war of chaos when likely the only Elves they knew were murdering slavers historically? I always assumed they kept SOME presence.
Old World Almanack about the Arcane Journal. The new AoI are Lothern Sea Guards and Chracian War Host. The Sea Guard looks interesting, but I've never found the White Lions that appealing. I was hoping for a Dragon Princes of Caledor force.
Old World Almanack about the Arcane Journal. The new AoI are Lothern Sea Guards and Chracian War Host. The Sea Guard looks interesting, but I've never found the White Lions that appealing. I was hoping for a Dragon Princes of Caledor force.
Funny enough, the Sea Guard and Chracians are my favorite parts of the HE. I just dont get why the swordmasters were given a slightly customized secondary option for the command characters, but not the Sea Guard
EDIT: So, the Chracian army seems decent. It's got an interesting extra core choice (Great weapon and bow armed woodsmen) and access to the usual units that make a good high elf army. There might also be some interesting ambush play with the possible modifiers to the roll.
I'm not sure about the sea guard list. Bulk strength 3 attacks and an emphasis on a weaker set of ambush mechanics combined with poorer dragon access and no access to a level 4 wizard or sisters means this looks like the weaker of the two variants at an initial glance. I'm also not a fan of the sky cutter model, even after more than a decade, it still doesn't look right to me. With the limited roster, they're a big part of the special choice section, so I'm not sure if they can be avoided. I'm tempted to try it anyway as I love the sea guard themselves and the overarching theme.
I guess by GW standards US$180 is a good price for the battalion. I like the chariots, but 32 Archers & 32 Spearmen still seems a bit excessive. And no Character. Good thing I've still got my Island of Blood set around.
I like the Reavers, but if I buy 10 new ones, then I'll have 15 total and that's probably too many.
I've also still got the original metal HE battalion from the 90's. I should probably try to sell that now that GW is ramping up the interest in them again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: They've got the Handmaiden hero, I wonder if they are going to release a unit of Sisters of Avelorn for her to join.
Doesn't even break 1,000 points for what you get. Could pump up the points a bit by turning both chariot kits into characters on chariots by using spare Champion swords from the Archers.
Grand Army list with characters on chariots.
Spoiler:
High Elf Realms [1282 pts]
++ Characters [582 pts] ++
Prince [291 pts]
- Hand weapon
- Chracian great blade
- Full plate armour
- General
- Lion Chariot of Chrace
- Seed of Rebirth
- Chracian Hunter
Prince [291 pts]
- Hand weapon
- Chracian great blade
- Full plate armour
- Lion Chariot of Chrace
- Seed of Rebirth
- Chracian Hunter
It honestly seems like maybe the best value out of that Battalion box is in the Chrace army. Add one box of White Lions and Korhil and use some of the spare bits to jazz up the Archers to look a bit more like Woodsmen and it should be good enough to get playing at 2,000 points.
Chrace list with Korhil and Lion Guard
Spoiler:
The Chracian Warhost [1996 pts]
++ Characters [745 pts] ++
Korhil Lionmane [175 pts]
- Hand weapon
- Chayal
- Heavy armour
- The Pelt of Charandis
- On foot
Prince [285 pts]
- Hand weapon
- Chracian great blade
- Light armour
- General
- Lion Chariot of Chrace
- Seed of Rebirth
- Chracian Hunter
Prince [285 pts]
- Hand weapon
- Light armour
- Lion Chariot of Chrace
- Seed of Rebirth
- Chracian Hunter
This unfortunately looks like a rather pointless army, infantry slowly wandering around, never getting anywhere and getting killed by practically anything else :(
so perfect for a casual game were nobody wants to win anyway but just move models around and roll some dice /s
by now, none of the battalion boxes was really useful to build an army around it and more about a noob trap to get people to buy and paint models they would never use otherwise
kodos wrote: so perfect for a casual game were nobody wants to win anyway but just move models around and roll some dice /s
by now, none of the battalion boxes was really useful to build an army around it and more about a noob trap to get people to buy and paint models they would never use otherwise
Yeah, almost all of the Battalion boxes besides the Chaos end up being pretty useless.
The Knights in the Chaos one can be used as Chosen, the Warriors can be used as "Forsaken" or as a bunker for a Sorcerer if you take the Mark of Tzeentch, and it is easy enough to use the chariots as characters like a Lord or Sorcerer on chariot... which are actually quite good. There generally ends up being enough bits from the Warriors to kit bash a Sorcerer on foot since they are armored anyways.
All armies need core - it’s a cost effective way to get it in one bundle. And you build from there. I don’t think battalions were ever intended to be an army in a box.
Yeah in general GW rarely builds boxed sets to be balanced proper armies. They want you to use them as a core that you expand from.
Spearhead is a bit different since GW are trying to bundle that into a sub-game a bit like a larger scale combat patrol.
Old World side they know that you're going to need more than what a boxed set offers. Heck back in the "before end times" era the boxed set was basically that. Core troops that you'd buy a few of to bulk out your collection. They didn't have leader models in them that I recall (though a few could build them from options on multipart kits )
agree, hence why it would be nice to put said core in a box and sell it on a discount (Chaos box is the big exception because you can easily use the models in the box for something else)
Dysartes wrote: It is a shame that the Skycutter is coming back - even for Elves, that's a stupid design.
While I agree the concept is crazy, the sculpt is incredible. The bird and the sky boat is beautiful and the Lothern Sea Helm character is probably the most impressive plastic hero you can get for the Elves.
Dysartes wrote: It is a shame that the Skycutter is coming back - even for Elves, that's a stupid design.
Hey, I'll have you know that the wood from these boats is found on the top of Ulthuan's mountains and because of that, it naturally wants to float back up there.
That's the lore. And I still remember it more than a decade later, despite being a dwarf player
Well, I was saved from the harebrained idea of starting a High Elf army by sticker shock. If I do such an army, most if not all of it is going to be third party models (3d printer go brrr). Maybe I didn't realize how crazy Old World prices are because I got most of my Tomb Kings for cheap from a friend, although I did buy a few small things for them later. If all the models were brand new sculpts, the prices would be a little less nuts, but for such old models? Highway robbery even by GW standards.
Yeah, I can complain about a few things for old world but generally the pricing is the same or cheaper than it was before WFB went down. With the odd exception of the damn TK chariots that should have been 6 chariots for the cost but someone forgot to tell packers......
Olthannon wrote: Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.
Indeed, most of them are pretty substantially cheaper in real terms than they were at the end of WFB...
Each box is expensive individually, but the contents is usually a good extra quarter or half what you'd have got for the same price back in the day. Bulk discount. Plus those transfers are expensive when GW sells them individually, so there's that as well.
Olthannon wrote: Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.
The problem is that they seem to have used the 8th edition WHFB sizes, so the armies are quite large, just without the moronic "Need a block of 40" crap which killed WHFB. Should have used the 6th edition sizes instead....
Dysartes wrote: It is a shame that the Skycutter is coming back - even for Elves, that's a stupid design.
Hey, I'll have you know that the wood from these boats is found on the top of Ulthuan's mountains and because of that, it naturally wants to float back up there.
That's the lore. And I still remember it more than a decade later, despite being a dwarf player
Where did you come upon this lore you remember? The 8th edition army book only describe them as "sleek, airborn chariots that rest upon a cushion of magic and are drawn into battle by Swiftfeather Rocs that nest along the Glittering Coast".
Olthannon wrote: Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.
The problem is that they seem to have used the 8th edition WHFB sizes, so the armies are quite large, just without the moronic "Need a block of 40" crap which killed WHFB. Should have used the 6th edition sizes instead....
Huh? With game sizes coming in at 2k from what I see...you don't need the large bricks like before unless you're playing in a tourney and doing point denial. My friend who I just got back into Warhammer after 10 years away plays dwarves and bought a box of hammerers. There is 20 of them and unlikely he needs more unless he wants royal clan warriors or longbeards. $85 for the box. Back in 8th, you would need 40 and they came in a box of 10 I think for like $60. For $240 you'd have a unit versus $85 for just 1 box and that's really all you need. Not to mention the cost per model dropped from $6/model to $4.25/model.
ZergSmasher wrote: Well, I was saved from the harebrained idea of starting a High Elf army by sticker shock. If I do such an army, most if not all of it is going to be third party models (3d printer go brrr). Maybe I didn't realize how crazy Old World prices are because I got most of my Tomb Kings for cheap from a friend, although I did buy a few small things for them later. If all the models were brand new sculpts, the prices would be a little less nuts, but for such old models? Highway robbery even by GW standards.
By GW standards (a somewhat skewed standard admittedly), the Old World prices are generally considered outright reasonable for the most part from what I've seen. A far cry from highway robbery (relative to their other products at least).
Personally, as someone who would much rather get hold of those older Fantasy ranges than any potential new models, having the option to get them consistently, in decent numbers, unbuilt and much, much cheaper than from places like eBay is a win.
Olthannon wrote: Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.
The problem is that they seem to have used the 8th edition WHFB sizes, so the armies are quite large, just without the moronic "Need a block of 40" crap which killed WHFB. Should have used the 6th edition sizes instead....
Huh? With game sizes coming in at 2k from what I see...you don't need the large bricks like before unless you're playing in a tourney and doing point denial. My friend who I just got back into Warhammer after 10 years away plays dwarves and bought a box of hammerers. There is 20 of them and unlikely he needs more unless he wants royal clan warriors or longbeards. $85 for the box. Back in 8th, you would need 40 and they came in a box of 10 I think for like $60. For $240 you'd have a unit versus $85 for just 1 box and that's really all you need. Not to mention the cost per model dropped from $6/model to $4.25/model.
From what I saw you still need a pretty big number of units compared to 5th or 6th edition, so while they are a bit discounted it's still not "cheap", just "good" by GW standards (which aren't very high). The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).
Wayniac wrote: The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).
It helps to discourage the old-style of narrow frontage, very deep units, which looked like a lot of guys trying to hide behind their mates.
Wayniac wrote: The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).
In practice this isn't really that big of a problem, as beyond a certain width units become too unwieldy. You can go really wide, but just try wheeling on the charge and you'll find it's a bad idea. In practice, combat units don't tend to get much wider than 6 or 7 models, otherwise they're too hard to manoeuvre. It's also worth noting that rank bonuses are capped at 2 for standard units and 3 for things with the Horde keyword, so you might have a unit of 24-25 infantry, but you're more likely to deploy them in 4 ranks of 6 rather than 5 ranks of 5, and there's really no need for the huge blocks that were common in 8th.
Overall, I think that TOW is relatively affordable by GW standards - the main exceptions being some of the new resin characters, and some of the MTO stuff. Returning plastic and metal is generally good value.
Wayniac wrote: The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).
In practice this isn't really that big of a problem, as beyond a certain width units become too unwieldy. You can go really wide, but just try wheeling on the charge and you'll find it's a bad idea. In practice, combat units don't tend to get much wider than 6 or 7 models, otherwise they're too hard to manoeuvre. It's also worth noting that rank bonuses are capped at 2 for standard units and 3 for things with the Horde keyword, so you might have a unit of 24-25 infantry, but you're more likely to deploy them in 4 ranks of 6 rather than 5 ranks of 5, and there's really no need for the huge blocks that were common in 8th.
Overall, I think that TOW is relatively affordable by GW standards - the main exceptions being some of the new resin characters, and some of the MTO stuff. Returning plastic and metal is generally good value.
Yeah, the only unit I think I'd go super-wide on would be Night Goblins. They're cheap, and their job is mostly to deliver Fanatics.
Olthannon wrote: Might be different in America or this is very much a YMMV but the Old World prices for the plastic kits have been pretty solid value overall.
The problem is that they seem to have used the 8th edition WHFB sizes, so the armies are quite large, just without the moronic "Need a block of 40" crap which killed WHFB. Should have used the 6th edition sizes instead....
Huh? With game sizes coming in at 2k from what I see...you don't need the large bricks like before unless you're playing in a tourney and doing point denial. My friend who I just got back into Warhammer after 10 years away plays dwarves and bought a box of hammerers. There is 20 of them and unlikely he needs more unless he wants royal clan warriors or longbeards. $85 for the box. Back in 8th, you would need 40 and they came in a box of 10 I think for like $60. For $240 you'd have a unit versus $85 for just 1 box and that's really all you need. Not to mention the cost per model dropped from $6/model to $4.25/model.
From what I saw you still need a pretty big number of units compared to 5th or 6th edition, so while they are a bit discounted it's still not "cheap", just "good" by GW standards (which aren't very high). The biggest issue I saw with the rules is that front rank stuff; if I read it right it means you are rewarded for having a huge line to get mass number of attacks since if any model in the front rank is in base contact, ALL models in the first rank can fight, whether in base contact or not, rather than being ranked up (although you do lose the rank bonus).
You should play the game man...max wide I see is 7 and even then that's unwieldy bc wheels aren't free. And infantry only charge M + highest of 2D6.
That is why you change formation between moving and fighting
And infantry you either play in blocks or not at all. You can have the small units of regular infantry but they are of no real use in the game for now
kodos wrote: That is why you change formation between moving and fighting
And infantry you either play in blocks or not at all. You can have the small units of regular infantry but they are of no real use in the game for now
So is that better or worse than 8th? Because I recall 8th ruined WHFB to where it was killed off by having that ridiculous need 40-man blocks rule.
kodos wrote: That is why you change formation between moving and fighting
And infantry you either play in blocks or not at all. You can have the small units of regular infantry but they are of no real use in the game for now
So is that better or worse than 8th? Because I recall 8th ruined WHFB to where it was killed off by having that ridiculous need 40-man blocks rule.
Fantasy was killed off with 7th Edition, 8th was just there to milk those what were still there as best as possible
And I would say it is a more like 5th than 8th, if there is good infantry it is 20-30 models per unit, if it is not good not worth playing in blocks of 40 either (while in 8th it was always good if played in large blocks)
My dwarves are generally 6-7 wide and 3-4 deep depending on the army I'm facing. Same with Black Orcs. I'm in agreement with Kodos on how it tends to go.
Some infantry works (insofar as infantry works currently) in even smaller units, like Chaos Chosen who get really expensive quite quickly, might be better taken as a 10.
nathan2004 wrote: Not sure what the fix is for infantry either….perhaps the return of step up but only for regular and heavy infantry.
I understand that step up is AN answer that GW published, but it is (as close as it is possible to get) the WRONG answer for the game system that is WFB.
If they rewrote the mechanics around step up then sure, but the current system and unit design uses the initiative stat and points costs out units with that in mind. A rule that makes initiative irrelevant until there are only 4 models left changes the stat profile value proposition considerably.
I think the answer is more that cavalry are too lazy and good than infantry are bad. By lazy i mean that cavalry should really be advantaged by their speed to manoeuvre around the sides of regiments, not just mindlessly charging into the front of them. Frontal cavalry charges should be desperation moves with big downsides, whether the target has pikes/spears or not.
If you play infantry vs infantry then the game is relatively fine.
The points are basically random anyway and ued for internal balance in the army but not across factions
Changing rules and points at the same time just causes more trouble without solving anything
The problem is that TOW misses the basic Rock/Paper/Scissors (oversimplified) that the combat between different unit types should be
Throughout history, well trained infantry was superior to cavalry, hence why Romans used Infantry Legions with cavalry support, while medieval armies focused on cavalry (because if there is no trained infantry force the cavalry rules)
Warhammer tries to get different historical settings into a single game, from elite infantry phalanx, over medieval cavalry up to early modern times mercenary armies
Not that it cannot work, but a unit of heavy cavalry facing very different kinds of infantry cannot always have the same outcome.
It should kill "bad" infantry on a frontal charge and be killed by good infantry
Yet with the game being only built around killing, there is no reason for bad infantry to be taken at all.
So the basic problem is that all scenarios are "kill" and winning the game without killing the most isn't an option
So infantry in general will always be either too good or too bad in that context
Medieval armies focussed on cavalry because they got heavier, more elite and effective, and infantry were trained (not to mention knights in some areas also fought on foot a lot depending on circumstances). Ancients used cavalry mostly as a supporting element.
Yet with the game being only built around killing, there is no reason for bad infantry to be taken at all.
Interesting, actually got me thinking that yeah, in-game there's no negative for a unit to have enemies nearby on both flanks. You're either in combat and providing combat res or not. In real life anything other than an elite unit would crumble due to knowing they're surrounded even if not in contact. (which then blends into always letting the enemy have somewhere to escape, as you don't really want them to decide they need to fight to the last man/make a breakout and kill more of your own soldiers)
nathan2004 wrote: Not sure what the fix is for infantry either….perhaps the return of step up but only for regular and heavy infantry.
I understand that step up is AN answer that GW published, but it is (as close as it is possible to get) the WRONG answer for the game system that is WFB.
If they rewrote the mechanics around step up then sure, but the current system and unit design uses the initiative stat and points costs out units with that in mind. A rule that makes initiative irrelevant until there are only 4 models left changes the stat profile value proposition considerably.
I think the answer is more that cavalry are too lazy and good than infantry are bad. By lazy i mean that cavalry should really be advantaged by their speed to manoeuvre around the sides of regiments, not just mindlessly charging into the front of them. Frontal cavalry charges should be desperation moves with big downsides, whether the target has pikes/spears or not.
If you play infantry vs infantry then the game is relatively fine.
The trick being, is there time in the game, and space on the board, for flanking to occur?
You know, a second movement phase might help that, there's no reason you can't have two movement phases in the same round. It could be incorporated into the combat phase.
Strategy
Movement
Shooting
Combat/manoeuvre*
Any unit that is not in combat may make a normal move, so long as it doesn't end in engagement with an enemy unit.
Give the army more movement and dynamism rather than grinding to a halt when they crash into each other. Use the movement phase for charges, but allow additional movement.
I think that part of the challenge is that regimental games work best in the abstract, rather than the WFB/40k paradigm of every model having a profile and being treated separately.
Regiments with allies within a certain distance will have a morale advantage over enemy's that don't, each regiment's morale will be affected by how close enemy regiments are to its flanks or rear, not just in contact.
A small cavalry regiment outnumbered by infantry will be at a severe morale disadvantage even if they have a great charge - a 5 man cav unit frontal charging 20 goblins is going to be swarmed by survivors, it doesn't matter how effective they are. Hence flank charging being preferred.
The rules allow cav to approach a disadvantageous situation and win. Their force multiplier abilities are supposed to offset their size, not to make them unbeatable. Cav should probably cause fear to infantry, but infantry should be able to swarm them with return attacks if they outnumber them too much.
I was thinking that instead of being tied to detachments, perhaps all infantry should basically act as a 'detchment' (melee section) regardless of size. A heavy cavalry charge historically would be smaller numbers against larger, but absolutely devastating but could get overwhelmed from the sides if they're not supported or had another unit tied up.
Currently detachments seem a bit too limited (and charging the detachment and destroying it first has the parent unit just sit there).
A frontal cavalry Charge never was a very good idea against an infantry line that didn't already crumble from the pure sight of it. As historian Bret Devereaux likes to say: a horse is not a battering ram
Sgt. Cortez wrote: A frontal cavalry Charge never was a very good idea against an infantry line that didn't already crumble from the pure sight of it. As historian Bret Devereaux likes to say: a horse is not a battering ram
Probably more an issue with spears and pikes not beeing represented properly and some armies still calling their shooting phase after a single unit.
Daba wrote: Medieval armies focussed on cavalry because they got heavier, more elite and effective, and infantry were trained (not to mention knights in some areas also fought on foot a lot depending on circumstances). Ancients used cavalry mostly as a supporting element.
Also you had much smaller armies made up of "loyal" elite warriors rather than professional armies. Cavalry never wants to charge spears etc unless they are going to break - and thats a risky thing, having them cause fear would likely work as if the infantry does break before they reach them the cav would slaughter them.
On the other hand if you are riding a giant boar, a large Raptor, a gigantic rhinox or similar then your experience with spears may be very different and your chance of the enemy breaking and running is probably higher.
A small cavalry regiment outnumbered by infantry will be at a severe morale disadvantage even if they have a great charge - a 5 man cav unit frontal charging 20 goblins is going to be swarmed by survivors, it doesn't matter how effective they are. Hence flank charging being preferred.
Hmm - I think Goblins would just break and run, like most low level infantry if they even faced the charge - now a orc mob, or the undead or Lizardmen or High Elves, elite infantry in general would have the belligerence, discipline etc to stand and swarm them.
Daba wrote: Medieval armies focussed on cavalry because they got heavier, more elite and effective, and infantry were trained (not to mention knights in some areas also fought on foot a lot depending on circumstances). Ancients used cavalry mostly as a supporting element.
The transition to heavy cavalry happened much earlier; in the Middle & Late Roman empires, the elite combat unit stopped being the infantry, & instead became the cavalry. Not to mention the Parthians, Persians, & other steppe influenced powers, were heavy users of cavalry. Even in Alexander's Macedonian armies, & those of his successors, cavalry (especially heavy cavalry) took on increasing importance.
Olthannon wrote: New border patrol rules is very nice, used to love playing that.
That's definitely the stand-out part of the release there, really great to see something official for army selection for 500 point games.
TOW is one of the most miniature intense games out there so having a 500 point goal to aim towards is really important, it's got me thinking about designing lists around that format, since I loved playing 6th, but sold off my armies a long time ago.
I notice a lot of local events settle for 1500 out of recognition that it's a lot easier for people to achieve that than 2000+.
One thing GW has become smart on is officially supporting smaller format games AND providing rules for them.
They've always had small format game optoins, but they were often just watered down main game rules and were in the back of the book and were mostly "here's what we use for the demo game, but once you start playing you use the real rules now go get at least 1K worth of models to make the game work properly".
These days there are so many cheap options to get into the game and get playing. New armies, new players and esp younger players can all jump into things like Underworld, Killteam and so forth. Honestly I recall when I was growing up it didn't matter how keen you were - affording an army was tricky and getting games trickier still so you'd have to borrow models or team up with a friend and so on and so forth.
Honestly if Old World keeps doing well I'd 100% expect to see them get something Killteam/Warcry like come along - Mordhiem would be the best marketing wise but as they've gone earlier in the timeline it could well be "It's Mordhiem in all but name" type game
SnotlingPimpWagon wrote: The link seems to be kaput for the pdf.. any chance anyone got the pdf before GW deleted it?
It's still right there. You just have to click the image that says "DOWNLOAD SCENARIOS", which takes you to the downloads section of the site, where all 3 pdfs are still posted, undeleted.
SnotlingPimpWagon wrote: The link seems to be kaput for the pdf.. any chance anyone got the pdf before GW deleted it?
It's still right there. You just have to click the image that says "DOWNLOAD SCENARIOS", which takes you to the downloads section of the site, where all 3 pdfs are still posted, undeleted.
The Squarebased podcast TOW survey results are in with some interesting numbers, more than 4,000 respondents. Obviously slanted due to exposure/audience etc etc
For those disinclined to watch, a poster on reddit made a breakdown
Spoiler:
I don't have time to watch an hour video today, but still wanted a summary. The robots made me this breakdown, so I thought I'd share. I'll delete it if you want me to.
(4,420 Responses)
Age of players: 82% are 25-44, with 42% under 34 – showing newer, younger players are joining.
Where? 60% from UK & Europe 33% from North America
Engagement: 65% say Old World is their main game. 70% are MORE excited about it than a year ago.
New vs. Returning Players:
23% are new to Warhammer Fantasy.
40% of new players are aged 18-34.
31% of North American players are new.
77% of new players played Total War: Warhammer – proving the game’s impact.
What Matters Most to Players?
80%+ prioritize:
Painting & hobbying
Rules & gameplay quality
23% consider attending events important.
Past Warhammer Fantasy Experience
70% played Fantasy before Old World.
Most popular past editions:
8th Edition (45%) – played until the end.
6th Edition (39%) – the most beloved edition.
Why Did People Stop Playing Fantasy?
44% quit because of the End Times.
Life changes (career, time, etc.) were the 2nd biggest reason.
Only a small % quit due to rules issues (8th/7th edition).
What Games Did Players Previously Play?
60% played 40K in the last three years.
Other war games ranked higher than AoS, suggesting a different player base.
60% of 40K players say they now play 40K LESS due to Old World.
40K is in a terrible spot right now imo. Night and day difference between the two games - one encourages customization and kit bashing. The other downright prohibits it. Not to mention the rules…
It's very promising to see how well the High Elves have sold. Nearly everything barring the battalion, books, reavers and a few others are temporarily out of stock. It gives me hope for future support of the model range. Very happy it's back I must say.
RustyNumber wrote: The Squarebased podcast TOW survey results are in with some interesting numbers, more than 4,000 respondents. Obviously slanted due to exposure/audience etc etc
For those disinclined to watch, a poster on reddit made a breakdown
Very interesting.
I guess in the end it depends on your local numbers.
Locally we used to have a great WHFB atmosphere. Historically lots of players. TOW bombed, maybe 1 game per month, tops, at the LGS.
At the same time, historically very few Epic players (scale seems unpopular). I thought LI was DoA without any kind of doubt. It turns out lots of players at the LGS.
Doesn't make any sense looking back at the previous times.
Makes sense it’s more popular in Europe than the states, they got castles and stuff there. Entire medieval history had its pages written there.
Separately - very happy to learn from watching the survey video they are gonna be at adepticon. I’ll be there with a few buddies and look forward to hopefully meeting the square based guys. I enjoy their channel very much.
nathan2004 wrote: Makes sense it’s more popular in Europe than the states, they got castles and stuff there. Entire medieval history had its pages written there.
Separately - very happy to learn from watching the survey video they are gonna be at adepticon. I’ll be there with a few buddies and look forward to hopefully meeting the square based guys. I enjoy their channel very much.
And 40k is more popular in the US because they have NFL guys with huge shoulder pauldrons Explaining stuff is easy.
kodos wrote: The main selling point of Warhammer was that it is european history with fantasy elements
For anyone not familiar with that part of history it doesn't really connect the same way
I had no idea. As a european I newer got the historical aspects of orcs, high/dark elves, chaos warriors and daemons, beastmen, skaven, lizardmen, and even the Undead was just a fun blend of 70s horror movies rather than acual folklore. I guess Dwarfs and Elves can be said to beloning to some kind of myth/folklore. But I suppose the things I percive as "classic tolkienesque fantasy" with a heavy dose of Moorcock is actually built on some kind of europeean history.
But how come DnD got popular in the US? Its the same basic world, generally speaking.
Well Lizardmen are based on the Aztec ideas and elements.
But yes predominantly Warhammer Fantasy started being based heavily on European themes and ideas coupled to Tolkien fantasy which was also European in focus. You even had one or two almost historical armies squeezed in there from the Perry Twins (eg Bretonnia which is a mix of French and Arthurian ideas)
That said I was always under the impression that the USA leaned heavily into European Fantasy tropes and ideas a LOT. Or at least above other fantasy settings such as African, Asian and so forth.
I suspect the fact is that way back when fantasy was at its height GW was more UK/EU focused than it is today. It took time for them to start properly spreading stores in the USA and the USA is bonkers vast so its very easy to have a game be really popular in one state and not in three .
Just find it hard to believe that "its based on europeean history" was a selling point for the tabletop game.
It is probably a big part of why the setting have survived and still work for a lot of people that get in to the "Empire" aspects and lore of the game. Especially now that The old World actually focus on "the old world" part of the world map. And certainly a big part of the RPG.
Mr Morden wrote: Also you had much smaller armies made up of "loyal" elite warriors rather than professional armies. Cavalry never wants to charge spears etc unless they are going to break - and thats a risky thing, having them cause fear would likely work as if the infantry does break before they reach them the cav would slaughter them.
Yeah no, the elite warriors thing was only the case in feudal gakholes. Centralized states, going back into antiquity, were able to field much larger and more professional armies. Greeks, Romans, Persians, Chinese were routinely fielding armies bigger than that of whole dark ages Europe put together no problem. Byzantines (and other misc, less well known attempts like Hungarian or Russian state infantry, or even Turks with their various auxiliaries) would be offended at suggestion such primitive organization was norm.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: A frontal cavalry Charge never was a very good idea against an infantry line that didn't already crumble from the pure sight of it. As historian Bret Devereaux likes to say: a horse is not a battering ram
And he is completely wrong about it, because it heavily depends on said cavalry and charge target. If said cavalry has lances, chances are they will go straight through whatever they charge, there are hundreds of examples of Persian/Byzantine Kataphraktoi or medieval knights/gendarmes doing just that, barring field fortifications or bad terrain. Even infantry having pikes does not guarantee anything, Polish hussars pulled off dozens of charges even against pike and shot formations up to 1700s (Battle of Kircholm, anyone?). Hell, even lighter lancer cavalry can be devastatingly effective agains anything up to modern and semi-modern guns and artillery, as long as it's used competently (say, in 1800s Polish lancers of Napoleon pulled off cavalry charge against Spanish infantry with artillery support dug in narrow mountain pass in Battle of Somosierra, pretty much the worst circumstances for cavalry possible).
The horse is not a battering ram only when it's commanded by idjits, like say the clowns who ordered the charge of Light Brigade alongside Russian trenches turning it into a turkey shoot. But that's skill issue, not fault of horses
nathan2004 wrote: 40K is in a terrible spot right now imo. Night and day difference between the two games - one encourages customization and kit bashing. The other downright prohibits it.
Care to enlighten us how 40K prohibits kitbashing? Is it by doing weekly articles on WC with really nice kitbash examples? Is it by getting rid of idiotic rules minutia like power knives having different rules than power stilettos or power daggers (I wish I was joking, alas I am not) forcing you into really rigid, unfun for both modelling and converting gak ten times harder than necessary if you wanted to show your opponent basic courtesy and show what your army is equipped with without constant reminders?
I find kitbashing and modelling in 10th is vastly easier than it was for past four editions, simply because you can use whatever you find cool instead of worrying what gak is in rules and what the opponent will say. I recall building Leviathan terminator captain recently and recalling what massive chore it would be in 6th to 9th (go over all terribly written melee options, mathhammer the worst ones out and picking whatever not terribly looking option was left), in 10th it's just 'Relic Power Fist' so I just slapped converted power fist with lightning claws on, something that both fits fluff of my chapter and what hilariously enough wasn't even an option in the gak rules writing of last 15 years!
I find it really hilarious how you can look at TOW rules with 'light weapon' being the exact same thing as generic 'power weapon' is now in 40K and somehow think one is doubleplusgooder and the other unminusgoodest. Mental gymnastics much?
BorderCountess wrote: Mordheim is set before Old World, so I don't see any issues with resurrecting it as-is.
I sincerely doubt they'd have the restraint necessary to leave it as-is. Even the original creators have rethought and recontextualized their relationship to the material(eg, Tuomas' "oh no I always intended for the deep dark secret in the Sisters' basement to be Sigmar reincarnated in the body of a girl who would have a mini-End Times anime showdown with Be'lakor, they're the definitive unironic goodies of the story, I just never even remotely hinted at such a thing in the material itself for...um...reasons" take he started talking about a few years back) and probably had a lot of ideas over the years about the gameplay, so even if GW were to bring them back to oversee a new version it's going to be substantially changed and probably not for the better. Not to mention that an active GW product means GW Legal's Eye of Sauron will turn its eye upon all the third party creators and the compilation websites hosting all the materials for the old version of the game, almost certainly to their detriment and thus ours.
Mordheim was lightning in a bottle. It was the right team making the right product at the right time and is rightly regarded as a classic by most, so even more than Necromunda any new version would lack much of what made the original so appealing even if they managed to avoid completely Flanderizing it in the same way. It's the one Specialist Game that almost never has any issues getting a local community going, the system is "solved" to the extent that there are pretty common sets of houserules for dealing with its flaws and everyone knows what warbands to avoid or take special care with in what scenarios, and there's enough supplementary and fan content that you could run a group every weekend for a decade and never have exactly the same experience twice. It doesn't needGW, and nothing GW can offer it would outweigh the probable damage.
Overread wrote: Well Lizardmen are based on the Aztec ideas and elements.
But yes predominantly Warhammer Fantasy started being based heavily on European themes and ideas coupled to Tolkien fantasy which was also European in focus. You even had one or two almost historical armies squeezed in there from the Perry Twins (eg Bretonnia which is a mix of French and Arthurian ideas)
That said I was always under the impression that the USA leaned heavily into European Fantasy tropes and ideas a LOT. Or at least above other fantasy settings such as African, Asian and so forth.
I suspect the fact is that way back when fantasy was at its height GW was more UK/EU focused than it is today. It took time for them to start properly spreading stores in the USA and the USA is bonkers vast so its very easy to have a game be really popular in one state and not in three .
Scifi is much bigger in the US than fantasy. We have a healthy western european fantasy culture as well but for a number of historical reasons scifi resonates more with our collective identity.
Overread wrote: Well Lizardmen are based on the Aztec ideas and elements.
But yes predominantly Warhammer Fantasy started being based heavily on European themes and ideas coupled to Tolkien fantasy which was also European in focus. You even had one or two almost historical armies squeezed in there from the Perry Twins (eg Bretonnia which is a mix of French and Arthurian ideas)
That said I was always under the impression that the USA leaned heavily into European Fantasy tropes and ideas a LOT. Or at least above other fantasy settings such as African, Asian and so forth.
I suspect the fact is that way back when fantasy was at its height GW was more UK/EU focused than it is today. It took time for them to start properly spreading stores in the USA and the USA is bonkers vast so its very easy to have a game be really popular in one state and not in three .
Scifi is much bigger in the US than fantasy. We have a healthy western european fantasy culture as well but for a number of historical reasons scifi resonates more with our collective identity.
Game of Thrones? Lord of the Rings? Wheel of Time? and there's also all sorts of urban fantasy, like Dresden Files, Buffy and vampire media in general, Stephen King. fantasy is certainly far from unknown over here
Mr Morden wrote: Also you had much smaller armies made up of "loyal" elite warriors rather than professional armies. Cavalry never wants to charge spears etc unless they are going to break - and thats a risky thing, having them cause fear would likely work as if the infantry does break before they reach them the cav would slaughter them.
Yeah no, the elite warriors thing was only the case in feudal gakholes. Centralized states, going back into antiquity, were able to field much larger and more professional armies. Greeks, Romans, Persians, Chinese were routinely fielding armies bigger than that of whole dark ages Europe put together no problem. Byzantines (and other misc, less well known attempts like Hungarian or Russian state infantry, or even Turks with their various auxiliaries) would be offended at suggestion such primitive organization was norm.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: A frontal cavalry Charge never was a very good idea against an infantry line that didn't already crumble from the pure sight of it. As historian Bret Devereaux likes to say: a horse is not a battering ram
And he is completely wrong about it, because it heavily depends on said cavalry and charge target. If said cavalry has lances, chances are they will go straight through whatever they charge, there are hundreds of examples of Persian/Byzantine Kataphraktoi or medieval knights/gendarmes doing just that, barring field fortifications or bad terrain. Even infantry having pikes does not guarantee anything, Polish hussars pulled off dozens of charges even against pike and shot formations up to 1700s (Battle of Kircholm, anyone?). Hell, even lighter lancer cavalry can be devastatingly effective agains anything up to modern and semi-modern guns and artillery, as long as it's used competently (say, in 1800s Polish lancers of Napoleon pulled off cavalry charge against Spanish infantry with artillery support dug in narrow mountain pass in Battle of Somosierra, pretty much the worst circumstances for cavalry possible).
The horse is not a battering ram only when it's commanded by idjits, like say the clowns who ordered the charge of Light Brigade alongside Russian trenches turning it into a turkey shoot. But that's skill issue, not fault of horses
nathan2004 wrote: 40K is in a terrible spot right now imo. Night and day difference between the two games - one encourages customization and kit bashing. The other downright prohibits it.
Care to enlighten us how 40K prohibits kitbashing? Is it by doing weekly articles on WC with really nice kitbash examples? Is it by getting rid of idiotic rules minutia like power knives having different rules than power stilettos or power daggers (I wish I was joking, alas I am not) forcing you into really rigid, unfun for both modelling and converting gak ten times harder than necessary if you wanted to show your opponent basic courtesy and show what your army is equipped with without constant reminders?
I find kitbashing and modelling in 10th is vastly easier than it was for past four editions, simply because you can use whatever you find cool instead of worrying what gak is in rules and what the opponent will say. I recall building Leviathan terminator captain recently and recalling what massive chore it would be in 6th to 9th (go over all terribly written melee options, mathhammer the worst ones out and picking whatever not terribly looking option was left), in 10th it's just 'Relic Power Fist' so I just slapped converted power fist with lightning claws on, something that both fits fluff of my chapter and what hilariously enough wasn't even an option in the gak rules writing of last 15 years!
I find it really hilarious how you can look at TOW rules with 'light weapon' being the exact same thing as generic 'power weapon' is now in 40K and somehow think one is doubleplusgooder and the other unminusgoodest. Mental gymnastics much?
LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.
nathan2004 wrote: 40K is in a terrible spot right now imo. Night and day difference between the two games - one encourages customization and kit bashing. The other downright prohibits it.
Care to enlighten us how 40K prohibits kitbashing?
LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.
But keep on thinking on
--------‐---------------------
Edit (Not sure how I messed up the quoting, but
So you're saying that you don't know that Dreadclaw & Karibdis(sp?) Pods exist in 40k.
You'll find them in the Legends of the Horus Heresy pdf on the Community page under Downloads.
I could kitbash one tomorrow if I chose.
Oh, what's that?
You say that you only play in tourneys where Legends aren't allowed?
You play by those tourney restrictions even when not in a tourney?
That you are CHOOSING not to play with all of the rules of 10e?
Well ok, you do you, but please stop complaining x doesn't exist in the game when it clearly does.
kodos wrote: The main selling point of Warhammer was that it is european history with fantasy elements
For anyone not familiar with that part of history it doesn't really connect the same way
I had no idea. As a european I newer got the historical aspects of orcs, high/dark elves, chaos warriors and daemons, beastmen, skaven, lizardmen, and even the Undead was just a fun blend of 70s horror movies rather than acual folklore. I guess Dwarfs and Elves can be said to beloning to some kind of myth/folklore. But I suppose the things I percive as "classic tolkienesque fantasy" with a heavy dose of Moorcock is actually built on some kind of europeean history.
But how come DnD got popular in the US? Its the same basic world, generally speaking.
The European part of of WFB (more WFRP, really) comes from the place names that exist in the background. Rather than AoS-style names like Hammerhal, Ferrusland or Embergard, we have countries like Estalia, Albion, Araby and Tilea. The central human faction of the setting was Germanic, which alone makes it fell more 'European' than just English. The familiar cast in a new light - what if Europe was invaded by orcs, for example.
D&D, for contrast, is more like a group of American tourists on holiday through a fantastical realm. Some campaign settings may have more real world influence than others, but the Forgotten Realms, for example, is a hodge-podge of monster locations and ancient kingdoms that seem to exist solely for adventuring parties to liberate to receive the gratitude of the locals.
Overread wrote: Well Lizardmen are based on the Aztec ideas and elements.
But yes predominantly Warhammer Fantasy started being based heavily on European themes and ideas coupled to Tolkien fantasy which was also European in focus. You even had one or two almost historical armies squeezed in there from the Perry Twins (eg Bretonnia which is a mix of French and Arthurian ideas)
That said I was always under the impression that the USA leaned heavily into European Fantasy tropes and ideas a LOT. Or at least above other fantasy settings such as African, Asian and so forth.
I suspect the fact is that way back when fantasy was at its height GW was more UK/EU focused than it is today. It took time for them to start properly spreading stores in the USA and the USA is bonkers vast so its very easy to have a game be really popular in one state and not in three .
Scifi is much bigger in the US than fantasy. We have a healthy western european fantasy culture as well but for a number of historical reasons scifi resonates more with our collective identity.
Game of Thrones? Lord of the Rings? Wheel of Time? and there's also all sorts of urban fantasy, like Dresden Files, Buffy and vampire media in general, Stephen King. fantasy is certainly far from unknown over here
"We have a healthy western european fantasy culture as well"
It helps to actually read what youre responding to.
LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.
But keep on thinking on
Personally I'm all for the concept of "no models no rules".
One of the biggest downsides to getting into 40K for a time and Old World was having unit options which didn't have a model.
I recall when Tyranids were getting these super cool new units like the Parasite and Doom - they were really cool and powerful and neat and -- no GW didn't make a model for them. In fact Doom still hasn't had a model and the Parasite was only fairly recent (compared to when the codex with it originally came out). It's one thing to have conversion and kitbashing as an option, but its another to require it to field certain models. To me that isn't encouraging conversion its just being a barrier to access of certain models.
Not everyone gets into all aspects of the game as much as others. Some don't want to spend a lot of time learning to kitbash and sculpt to field armies. They want to buy a box of models; build them and play with them and have equal standing to everyone else.
Kitbashing being an option is good for everyone and GW has done NOTHING to stop it. As noted they do regular articles on kitbashing* and encourage it all the time by showing off fancy completed custom armies fans have done.
I can also agree that sometimes they take "no models no rules" a touch too far - eg removing twin linked devourers from the hive tyrant because they aren't specifically in that kit even if the parts are in another kit.
*we can argue that they perhaps focus a lot more on having mountains of plastic from themselves and don't touch on sculpting aspects and touchups as much as they used too now that they don't sell Greenstuff.
To be fair you are better off using plastic bits for WFB regiments conversions than sculpting dozens of bits for one unit. For characters sure but regiments it's only viable if you want to sink weeks of work into sculpting.
LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.
But keep on thinking on
Personally I'm all for the concept of "no models no rules".
One of the biggest downsides to getting into 40K for a time and Old World was having unit options which didn't have a model.
I recall when Tyranids were getting these super cool new units like the Parasite and Doom - they were really cool and powerful and neat and -- no GW didn't make a model for them. In fact Doom still hasn't had a model and the Parasite was only fairly recent (compared to when the codex with it originally came out). It's one thing to have conversion and kitbashing as an option, but its another to require it to field certain models. To me that isn't encouraging conversion its just being a barrier to access of certain models.
Not everyone gets into all aspects of the game as much as others. Some don't want to spend a lot of time learning to kitbash and sculpt to field armies. They want to buy a box of models; build them and play with them and have equal standing to everyone else.
Kitbashing being an option is good for everyone and GW has done NOTHING to stop it. As noted they do regular articles on kitbashing* and encourage it all the time by showing off fancy completed custom armies fans have done.
I can also agree that sometimes they take "no models no rules" a touch too far - eg removing twin linked devourers from the hive tyrant because they aren't specifically in that kit even if the parts are in another kit.
*we can argue that they perhaps focus a lot more on having mountains of plastic from themselves and don't touch on sculpting aspects and touchups as much as they used too now that they don't sell Greenstuff.
Have to disagree here. Having unit options that don’t exist in the exact kit inspires you to build your own dudes and more often than not is just reasonable and not having them often makes the setting feel small. What I'm referring to is weapons that only some unit leaders have since 9th ed, but others for arbitrary reasons don’t.
Every leader model should have the same basic weapon options within an army. That is encouraging kitbashing and also allows a bit of faction identity. Every SM and CSM leader should have the option to get a plasma pistol and the rules should also not make a plasma pistol the default to take for anyone that can do so.
No models no rules is possibly the biggest downside of the current 40K rules. It disallows some models, it makes armies look samey, it restricts list building and it gives an additional barrier when learning the rules because nob 1 is allowed to take xyz and nob 2 is allowed to take y and nob 3 can take z or a. And don’t get me started with Plague Marine nonsense where you have to to equip 5 different guns.
Have to disagree here. Having unit options that don’t exist in the exact kit inspires you to build your own dudes and more often than not is just reasonable and not having them often makes the setting feel small. What I'm referring to is weapons that only some unit leaders have since 9th ed, but others for arbitrary reasons don’t.
Every leader model should have the same basic weapon options within an army. That is encouraging kitbashing and also allows a bit of faction identity. Every SM and CSM leader should have the option to get a plasma pistol and the rules should also not make a plasma pistol the default to take for anyone that can do so.
No models no rules is possibly the biggest downside of the current 40K rules. It disallows some models, it makes armies look samey, it restricts list building and it gives an additional barrier when learning the rules because nob 1 is allowed to take xyz and nob 2 is allowed to take y and nob 3 can take z or a. And don’t get me started with Plague Marine nonsense where you have to to equip 5 different guns.
No Models No Rules just means if its in the kit you can build it and field it and if its not in the kit you can't field it. GW making odd choices on what they consider legal builds such as no upgrade costs and taking "one of every weapon type even if there's more choices in the kit" isn't a limit on the models its a limit on GW's writing and rules focus. I can even fully agree that its bonkers - heck I hate that in Age of Sigmar they want you take 1 banner and 1 musician per box which means a unit of 30 warriors has 3 musicians and 3 banners. It's even worse for cavalry where you've got typically units in blocks of 5 where now every 2 are command instead of troops (its even more bonkers for slaanesh as they have 3 command options so more than half the squad is command not troops)
As for encouraging conversion I think that there's two sides of that coin. As I noted not everyone wants to learn the skill and not everyone who learns it is good at it. Newbies shouldn't be punished because they don't have an out-of-game skill in conversion. I'm all for optional parts and GW could do more for cross model compatibility; upgrade parts and more if they wanted.
The thing is being able to convert should be a choice for the game that GW encourages rather than a requirement to play the game. It also means that GW doesn't fall into that trap of giving us loads of models and loads of choices that they aren't making models for; which they 100% were falling into a while back. I doubt that will happen now with 3D printing and 3rd parties being much bigger than they were so GW doesn't want to openly leave huge gaps like that in their line-up because 3rd parties will just fill it and steal the coins from GW.
I should also point out that almost the entire wargaming market operates "no models no rules".
About the only one that stands out to my mind of not doing it is Infinity and they kind of get away with it because you might only put one of a type of model on the table so it doesn't matter if its got a shotgun or rifle or sniper because its just 1 model to track the proxy on.
Most other larger scale wargames use NMNR they just don't market it as a "thing" its just how they've always been.
RPG games and skirmishers are often a bit more open
Daba wrote: Dunno if someone already mentioned but there's a rumour for Beastmen first reveal 22nd March, April 5th preorder, first reveal 22nd march.
Not much to 'reveal'. I'd go with 'anouncement' i think. Apart from a few models we know most of what is coming. Not much new to reveal. I am interested in which old forgeworld moster(s?) will be back for beastmen though!
The standard bray shaman is most likely going to be the plastic one that was released for age of sigmar. Plus the forgeworld special character that was previewed.
The Bray Shamen and Beastlords described as “classic”. Which strongly suggests all new sculpts coming.
Very good point I haven't noticed any other models they've brought back listed as "Classic".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Since we know they aren't bringing back finecast...will the razorgor be A) Metal B) Forgeworld Resin or C) New Sculpt...what does everyone think?
The Bray Shamen and Beastlords described as “classic”. Which strongly suggests all new sculpts coming.
Very good point I haven't noticed any other models they've brought back listed as "Classic".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Since we know they aren't bringing back finecast...will the razorgor be A) Metal B) Forgeworld Resin or C) New Sculpt...what does everyone think?
The O&G releases of old models reverted from finecast to metal.
I expect a slow phasing out of older models (metal) in subsequent editions, or replacement with plastic.
Daba wrote: The HE Handmaiden model re-released is now metal and IIRC was originally Finecast for that sculpt.
Yes, most of the first batch of "Finecast-only" models from when it was new are now released in metal. The Tomb Kings Liche, Necrotect, and Prince Apophas, the Empire Witch Hunter, and now the Handmaiden too (probably some others too). I got the TK ones now that they are in metal (they were a bit to fragile in resin back then).
Plastic Chariot for beastmen (with pumbagor options to replace the awful existing sculpt) would be very very welcome, since those have been at the core of beastmen armies since forever, but never got a plastic kit.
Generally, the army gets the short straw with releases so I'm not expecting anything, the orc chariots are available again for conversion at least.
LOL okay man...sure wish a chaos drop pod existed that could be kit bashed. And that list customization existed in 40k beyond restricted squad sizes and the examples you gave. And before you say it I know I should play 30k.
But keep on thinking on
Personally I'm all for the concept of "no models no rules".
One of the biggest downsides to getting into 40K for a time and Old World was having unit options which didn't have a model.
I recall when Tyranids were getting these super cool new units like the Parasite and Doom - they were really cool and powerful and neat and -- no GW didn't make a model for them. In fact Doom still hasn't had a model and the Parasite was only fairly recent (compared to when the codex with it originally came out). It's one thing to have conversion and kitbashing as an option, but its another to require it to field certain models. To me that isn't encouraging conversion its just being a barrier to access of certain models.
Not everyone gets into all aspects of the game as much as others. Some don't want to spend a lot of time learning to kitbash and sculpt to field armies. They want to buy a box of models; build them and play with them and have equal standing to everyone else.
Kitbashing being an option is good for everyone and GW has done NOTHING to stop it. As noted they do regular articles on kitbashing* and encourage it all the time by showing off fancy completed custom armies fans have done.
I can also agree that sometimes they take "no models no rules" a touch too far - eg removing twin linked devourers from the hive tyrant because they aren't specifically in that kit even if the parts are in another kit.
*we can argue that they perhaps focus a lot more on having mountains of plastic from themselves and don't touch on sculpting aspects and touchups as much as they used too now that they don't sell Greenstuff.
Also, its soo fun hunting down all the bits you need for a kitbash for if you want all your sternguard to have the same.
Contraversial opinion, having more restricted loadout, or static load out makes kitbashing BETTER
Let’s do the wibbly time warp, and go back to say, 3rd Edition.
You and I are both nascent Space Marine players, starting from scratch.
Whilst we’ve the same range of models before us? Let’s say my weekly or monthly budget is greater than yours.
And that can make the difference in the army and armaments we collect. Where you might add a squad of Devastators by buying the retail box? I can afford to buy the individual blisters. And so I end up with a Devastator Squad of four Plasma Cannons.
And I can repeat that to buy options for Tactical Squads, where your budget sticks you with Whatever Is In The Retail Boxed Set.
Now? We each buy the same box, and have exactly the same options. Yes I can ultimately buy more than you, but squad for squad, box for box? We’ve exactly the same loadout options.
And Kitbashing isn’t dead. Much of the previous requirement is gone, sure. But there’s sod all stopping you kit bashing a squad or character if that’s your preference. You just don’t gain an in-game advantage of a particularly saucy loadout.
Solid points, and I am on record for having defended GW's decimation of wargear options all the way back in 4th edition CSM and DA books, thinking this would give kitbashers more freedom without having to worry about WYSIWYG and points. But now I also see it as another stepping stone towards a completely canned product with no hint of self expression left. There's a 40k playgroup in my country (not my city, thankfully) that actually demands everything be built exactly like on the box cover.
That said way back when GW allowed you to bring allied detachments in big numbers and we inched into "painting impacts the rules your army can use" because everyone was taking multi-subfaction armies for the best results - that likely did spawn a generation of gamers who hold that view more than "your models you paint them however you want" attitudes of the majority of generations.
For anybody that's interested Rob and Val from Square Based have"finished" their FAQ / errata for the legacy armies.
The changes are a light touch to make the armies work a bit better (by bringing them closer to how those armies worked in previous editions) and update them in line with any similar changes to the other factions. These are not intended as a balance pass, but they might consider this at a later point. They mentioned that in the future they might also look at creating some renegade unit rules for any units that have been included in previous game editions but which are currently absent.
There's a YouTube video where they run through the changes and Val's rationale for the way he's handled each of the changes. In the video they mention that the old world army builder website will be updated so that people can opt into these rules when making their lists and that a number of TO's are going to use them for their events and also that the Mountain Miniatures YouTube channel will be using these rules in their battle reports.
Let’s do the wibbly time warp, and go back to say, 3rd Edition.
You and I are both nascent Space Marine players, starting from scratch.
Whilst we’ve the same range of models before us? Let’s say my weekly or monthly budget is greater than yours.
And that can make the difference in the army and armaments we collect. Where you might add a squad of Devastators by buying the retail box? I can afford to buy the individual blisters. And so I end up with a Devastator Squad of four Plasma Cannons.
And I can repeat that to buy options for Tactical Squads, where your budget sticks you with Whatever Is In The Retail Boxed Set.
Now? We each buy the same box, and have exactly the same options. Yes I can ultimately buy more than you, but squad for squad, box for box? We’ve exactly the same loadout options.
And Kitbashing isn’t dead. Much of the previous requirement is gone, sure. But there’s sod all stopping you kit bashing a squad or character if that’s your preference. You just don’t gain an in-game advantage of a particularly saucy loadout.
The answer to that is to produce kits with more options or upgrade sets like in HH, not killing options instead. But with GWs kits that build like Puzzles nowadays they made conversions less appealing than in earlier times despite stuff being in plastic now. But try to convert anything with a two handed weapon - or hairs - these days... and then look at the awesome nobz kit.
Not sure that is the solution though, as it’s still introducing a difference in pocket depth.
I do like the Heresy upgrades, and for that game they make sense. But, if your budget only extends to Box of Marines and One Upgrade, where mine extends to Box of Marines and Two Upgrades? I have an advantage in what I can field.
The Black Adder wrote: For anybody that's interested Rob and Val from Square Based have"finished" their FAQ / errata for the legacy armies.
The changes are a light touch to make the armies work a bit better (by bringing them closer to how those armies worked in previous editions) and update them in line with any similar changes to the other factions. These are not intended as a balance pass, but they might consider this at a later point. They mentioned that in the future they might also look at creating some renegade unit rules for any units that have been included in previous game editions but which are currently absent.
There's a YouTube video where they run through the changes and Val's rationale for the way he's handled each of the changes. In the video they mention that the old world army builder website will be updated so that people can opt into these rules when making their lists and that a number of TO's are going to use them for their events and also that the Mountain Miniatures YouTube channel will be using these rules in their battle reports.
I liked their changes, Rob and Val really do have a great love for the game.
Not to mention they have a great community and lots of connections around them that can point them in the right direction Great to see them reaching out and take the time and effort to make the survey and now actually trying to patch up the stuff GW dont really support anyway.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Not sure that is the solution though, as it’s still introducing a difference in pocket depth.
I do like the Heresy upgrades, and for that game they make sense. But, if your budget only extends to Box of Marines and One Upgrade, where mine extends to Box of Marines and Two Upgrades? I have an advantage in what I can field.
Until pennies to points ratio evens out across all models, whoever has the most money will always have the most options.
I'm guessing that the beast pack hinted at in the wood elf reveal are these models (animal keepers), found on stuffoflegends in the 1988 catalog. Four elves along with (two each of) wild boar, wild cat, bear, and warhound.
Cathay looks very nice. Great to see the well sculpted Asiatic features. I don't like animated statues in general, but the infantry look very nice (even if they are a bit static), and I love dual weapon option kits to feed the bits box. Cavalry look very cool.
I may have to get that Woodelf Battalion. The archers are not a great kit, but the other kits in there are pretty nice.
Cathay looks way cooler, than I thought it would. Cannon -mvp in my opinion. The big ogre type dude - that sort of dudes should have more of a presence, imho. A very very strong reveal!
But still not quite my cup of tea.
My cup of tea is stuck with a cygor in a battalion and no promises of new models other than a shaman. Can we at least get a preyton from the bottom of the barrel, please? The battalion better cost no more than 80 quid, I can at least flog the cygor for 35 and in the end - get the infantry for cheap.
I hope the arcane journal at least provides enticing new options to play, and the quality of alternative armies land on the side of Wolves of the Sea and OnG arcane journal.
The jabberslythe is back, which is cool, I like the sculpt.
Cathay had me genuinely stunned. It doesn’t seem long ago we were collectively asking “so, what happens to Cathay and Kislev, eh?”.
Then like a 28mm RKO OUTTA NOWHERE, our back was on the Matt.
And what a gorgeous range. It’s fresh, it’s visually cohesive on its own terms, but it slots pretty neatly into the existing design language of Warhammer, like it’s always been there (I am aware 3rd Ed offered an army list with illustrations, and I don’t think these are terribly far off?)
Will I collect a whole army? Not sure. But I will be buying a Sentinel, maybe two. They look a lot of fun to paint.
Speaking of painting, I hope to see competition entires of the Balloon and Sentinels in due course. Especially the paper lamp, as that’s a huge surface, surely just begging for someone with Mad Skilz to go to town. Perhaps with a Ming Vase inspired noodling.
Vorian wrote: The Preyton is there, down in the returning resin bit
Oh, you’re right! That’s good Gorros and friend from mordheim (!!!) are back as well!
BSB - also great.
But the return of razorgor and tuskgor chariots - that stings. Especially after seeing the new goblin chariots in plastic. Still a slim chance of Centigors in plastic, right? Or I missed something on the article again and the old ones are brought back..
Edit: I did indeed miss it
Surprised that they revealed Cathay so quickly and even more so about the extent of the range. I was half expecting a few core regiments, a Shugengan lord and some rare units just as an initial splash and wasn't even expecting that until very late this year. I was fairly confident we wouldn't see one of the dragon children or more unusual stuff like the Sky Lantern, Longma and Sentinel, a bit like the original Votann release. However it looks like we're all in on releasing pretty much the entire Total War range if these initial previews are anything to go by. Against my better judgement I think I'll be starting up a Cathay army.
Also bodes well for Kislev. For this number of miniatures to have been produced for Cathay, they must have started on them 2/3 years ago. So the weird messaging around Cathay/Kislev being in the game and then going AWOL was probably just bad wording in one of the Warhammer Comm articles. If that's the case then Kislev was probably getting worked on at the same time and we'll likely see them in 2026.
Main question now is when will we see Cathay? Are they going to smash through Welves and Beastmen quickly and we see Cathay in the mid summer or more likely are they an Autumn release? Which makes GW's decision to announce them already a sign of their confidence in the range.
#2 Is it me, or does the Cathay army look like a nightmare to transport?
#1 a company making another Rank&File game (Kings of War)
#2 yes, the more I look in the Laterns, the more I get the feeling that whole thing is something you don't want to touch again once you painted it and put on the shelf
Going with an army like in the preview that uses several of those together with the Sentinel is something I don't want to take further than the living room for gaming
I'm sorry, but could you explain this colloquium to me? Thank you.
Is it by doing weekly articles on 
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
