NinthMusketeer wrote: SCE could really use some consolidation, they aren't Marines-level bad but its getting there.
Alternative thought - other AoS armies need bulking out so everyone can catch up with the stormcast and spread the game out with more subgroupings, specialists and all.
You say that, but I have trouble believing Slaves to Darkness have no need for 75+ warscrolls, to say nothing of more specialized armies. 75 Idoneth warscrolls? 75 Nighthaunt warscrolls? 75 Fyreslayer warscrolls? I can count on one hand the number of armies for which that number of units would be beneficial more than detrimental, all of them being several related theme-armies mashed together into a single faction.
Looks like Beastmen are finally coming up next after StD, so it's a pretty damn good winter for chaos all things considered! Could use new minotaur sculpts, but I'm sure most people are already using the Ogroids as proxies in many cases.
I'm more excited on the Gloomspite Gitz front, especially now that Wolf Riders are officially back. The Underworlds Warband is also really sick.
"Hi Beastmen players. Here's a new book. Now shut up."
"No new models?"
"Oh... yeah... hold on..." *rummages around in old STLs* "Uhh... here! This'll do. It's a... Beastlord, I guess?"
"No new Minotaurs? Plastic Jabberslythe?"
"I thought I told you guys to shut up! You got a new book. Now go away so we can stop thinking about you for another 5+ years."
Dysartes wrote: With two Death books pencilled in for Spring, I suspect we'll see a few of the o/s Rumour Engine images solved by them.
Wonder which death gets short stick on being last? Soulblight would be expected as being new but then again age of book isn't much of worry for GW in terms of updating. So OBR/FEC both possible.
For me after spring just COS left for AOS2 book. Good luck for me.
Too bad BOC appears to be before gits unless it's double release which is of course possible.
It's a shame that GW will probably miss a great opportunity for something fun and thematic by not using Rippa's Snarlfangs as the basis of a trio of hero choices(unnamed) that can make Snarlfang Riders into Battleline or into a kind of "3 for 1" named hero option with each one bolstering a different kind of Snarlfang Rider option.
Damn! Thrilled with the Wolfriders!
I was but a wet behind the ears kid when drooling over a White Dwarf (2002-ish?) that featured a gorgeous army of wolf borne goblins. (completed with classic black and white chequered colour scheme)
Always a dream army...
Really beautiful models even if the riders looks a touch cruelboyz-esque from where I'm sitting.
(All forgiven, gimmie!)
The Beastman is a thing of grotesque beauty, yet more true 'Old World' vibes about him as well, largest disappointment is that seems to be it for that faction in terms of kits? Bah! Or is that Beeeh?
Ok, so looking at the roadmap, by summer only two tomes are going to be left not updated for this edition. One death and one order. Guesses are probably going to be Soulblight is the outstanding for death and for order it's going to be a tossup between Kharadron and Seraphon. So, are we finally going to get an edition of a GW game where all books are going to be done?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Ok, so looking at the roadmap, by summer only two tomes are going to be left not updated for this edition. One death and one order. Guesses are probably going to be Soulblight is the outstanding for death and for order it's going to be a tossup between Kharadron and Seraphon. So, are we finally going to get an edition of a GW game where all books are going to be done?
COS could be for autumn release as well. And just because soulblight is newer doesn't mean it's going to be last. DOK was one of the last books aos2 had and already got book. In fact they got book almost same time as soulblight. So both fec and obr could get short stick as well.
And no it wouldn't be first time. Think there has been 2 or 3 such times. FB 6 or 7 was one such edition. It's rare but not unheard of.
But yeah pace is good and leaves 40k go green in envy. And come gits tome every faction has got some sort of update already.
I don't think Cities will be autumn. A single tome in the summer release slot? That's usually for something big and Cities is getting treated as quite a big deal this time.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Hi Beastmen players. Here's a new book. Now shut up."
"No new models?"
"Oh... yeah... hold on..." *rummages around in old STLs* "Uhh... here! This'll do. It's a... Beastlord, I guess?"
"No new Minotaurs? Plastic Jabberslythe?"
"I thought I told you guys to shut up! You got a new book. Now go away so we can stop thinking about you for another 5+ years."
I love when people post this absolutely parasocial stuff.
Beastlord looks cool. Hopefully they bring the internal balance around a bit so that beastmen aren't crutched around cockatrices and/or the herdstone. Would be nice for the gors/bestigors to have a place with drogres and bullgors acting more as support pieces.
Full range refresh among Chaos and a completely redone from the ground up in Dawnbringers. I'd say it's going along quite nicely. Only BoC and Skaven need it now.
Saurus warriors and knights are some of the oldest and worst core units left in the range, we're talking pre-CAD, up to 1mm mold lines, gak part alignement, etc. They're not fit to be sold.
lord_blackfang wrote: One new unit and one new hero across two battletomes, AoS really getting spoiled.
Yeah, there is a lot more of the 1 hero updates than range updates going on right now for sure. Feels sort of like how 8th with a bunch of factions getting a hero, or in some cases nothing and a lot more and bigger refreshes in 9th.
Some factions need it a lot more than others. Gloomspite is fine, it's got an amazing modern plastic range for the most part. Beastmen really needed a lot more.
I don't expect Hedonites to get much of anything when they update.
lord_blackfang wrote: Saurus warriors and knights are some of the oldest and worst core units left in the range, we're talking pre-CAD, up to 1mm mold lines, gak part alignement, etc. They're not fit to be sold.
Definitely agree. The Saurus unit compared to the Saurus in the Starblood Stalkers is like comparing the original Space Hulk genestealers to modern tyranids.
Seraphon have been skipped over for updates since AoS came out.
The problem is Seraphon at least have a diverse model line. You've also got armies like Flesheaters and Fyreslayers - heck Flesheaters are basically 1 stand alone hero, 1 special model in finecast and 1 getting started box.
Fyreslayers aren't much better though have a few more heroes.
Heck even Daughters of Khaine, who have had quite a lot of attention story wise and marketing wise, have a pretty small unit roster.
And this is the issue, AoS has so so many factions that "need" an update. Be it second-wave style bulking out the army; or be it updating extensive armies with more modern sculpts (heck look at skaven - one of the biggest and most diverse armies and still running around with old metal and you want plastics - they still have their first generation plastic rat ogres).
AoS is getting there steadily. Slaanesh got a huge and wonderful series of updates; Soulblight (even if it was marred by the mess of Cursed City) had some solid updates. Nighthaunt were a focus for a whole edition; Stormcast remain pretty diverse; Chaos is getting a huge winter update (and has had a wealth of variety with Warcry - though freaking heck GW why haven't you updated the marauder kit!).
AoS is moving in the right direction and right now I'd say the only big question mark is what the heck GW does with Cities of Sigmar. Every other army seems stable and you can see how GW could and will likely support them, Cities is just totally unknown. We know the human side is getting a big update, but there's still the dwarf and remains of light and wood elves and almost the entire dark elf army sitting there.
Gotrek books have been teasing a big Dwarf reuniting/event pretty much at the end of every book so far; meanwhile Daughters of Khaine teased rebuilding the Dark Elf army (if GW did that I'd honestly hope they just relaunch the army without Daughters of Khaine and have them as allies /special detachment).
Goose LeChance wrote: It's their own fault really, AOS is so shallow they had to split all the WHFB armies up and turn single units into their own faction.
Can you explain this viewpoint? I don't think I understand what you're trying to convey.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Saurus warriors and knights are some of the oldest and worst core units left in the range, we're talking pre-CAD, up to 1mm mold lines, gak part alignement, etc. They're not fit to be sold.
Yeah, saurus and especially saurus knights just don't look good on the table.
Goose LeChance wrote: It's their own fault really, AOS is so shallow they had to split all the WHFB armies up and turn single units into their own faction.
Can you explain this viewpoint? I don't think I understand what you're trying to convey.
AOS had no content, models or lore and some genius thought making an entire army of dwarf slayers would be more interesting than a proper dwarf army.
Goose LeChance wrote: It's their own fault really, AOS is so shallow they had to split all the WHFB armies up and turn single units into their own faction.
Can you explain this viewpoint? I don't think I understand what you're trying to convey.
AOS had no content, models or lore and some genius thought making an entire army of dwarf slayers would be more interesting than a proper dwarf army.
Probably because the last time GW did an entire army of Dwarf Slayers it was more interesting than a "proper" Dwarf army.
Goose LeChance wrote: It's their own fault really, AOS is so shallow they had to split all the WHFB armies up and turn single units into their own faction.
Can you explain this viewpoint? I don't think I understand what you're trying to convey.
AOS had no content, models or lore and some genius thought making an entire army of dwarf slayers would be more interesting than a proper dwarf army.
With all due respect that isn't an explanation, or even true.
They split Slayers out of Dwarfs to make their own army. They split Witch Elves out of Dark Elves to make into its own army. Ghouls out of Vampire Counts.
They then found themselves with a mess of rando units, so cut a bunch of them completely, and pushed the remainder into a "Cities of Sigmar" book for abandoned toys, an army with such a short shelf-life that I'm amazed if anything from it will survive the coming of the Crusade book.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
Seraphon (which have gotten functionally skipped (in terms of models) every edition so far)
Beasts (have a character model to replace the character models you've already got, alternately, a terrain piece.
He-man Skeletons, which turned into a one and done project
Fish elves, for the same reason
Witch elves, which had a promising start with the harpies and medusas, then somehow turned into character, character, character. (And i can't figure out why, with 3 editions of AoS, they've had so many iterations of basically nothing)
Orcs without goblins, which have the new guys, the last push for savage orc plastic kits, and a couple bad renditions of black orcs, but don't really congeal into a functional army.
Giants
the crazy vampires with the weird plastic mutant orcs passing as ghouls. Where it took years and years just to get a vampire character that wasn't ripped off the back of a zombie dragon.
Fire dwarves
Special mention for Malekith's brand of elfs, which three editions in and it hasn't even materialized yet!
and Cities of Sigmar, which have _lost_ stuff every iteration, and will probably be binned completely and replaced by the Dawnbringer army (or at least that was my impression from latest Dawnbringer preview, where they started using 'Dawnbringer Crusade' and 'Cities of Sigmar' interchangeably).
Some of the others (fallout dwarves, skaven, sylvaneth) still need work, but don't feel actively incomplete and neglected anymore
Age of Sigmar has improved a lot, but somehow they still really let some factions rot and over-updated others (especially light elfs and sigmarines)
And clearly with beasts and gloomspite, this isn't changing anytime soon.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
Seraphon (which have gotten functionally skipped (in terms of models) every edition so far)
Beasts (have a character model to replace the character models you've already got, alternately, a terrain piece.
He-man Skeletons, which turned into a one and done project
Fish elves, for the same reason
Witch elves, which had a promising start with the harpies and medusas, then somehow turned into character, character, character. (And i can't figure out why, with 3 editions of AoS, they've had so many iterations of basically nothing)
Orcs without goblins, which have the new guys, the last push for savage orc plastic kits, and a couple bad renditions of black orcs, but don't really congeal into a functional army.
Giants
the crazy vampires with the weird plastic mutant orcs passing as ghouls. Where it took years and years just to get a vampire character that wasn't ripped off the back of a zombie dragon.
Fire dwarves
Special mention for Malekith's brand of elfs, which three editions in and it hasn't even materialized yet!
and Cities of Sigmar, which have _lost_ stuff every iteration, and will probably be binned completely and replaced by the Dawnbringer army (or at least that was my impression from latest Dawnbringer preview, where they started using 'Dawnbringer Crusade' and 'Cities of Sigmar' interchangeably).
Some of the others (fallout dwarves, skaven, sylvaneth) still need work, but don't feel actively incomplete and neglected anymore
Age of Sigmar has improved a lot, but somehow they still really let some factions rot and over-updated others (especially light elfs and sigmarines)
And clearly with beasts and gloomspite, this isn't changing anytime soon.
I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.
You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.
So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.
OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.
OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.
Rumours are that FEC is getting an update next year. There are some very old rumour engines that definitely have a FEC vibe.
bullyboy wrote: Having come into a large collection of unbuilt Bretonnians, is there a way to play these in AOS, or do I just need to wait til Old World rolls around?
Official battletome? No. They don't have it.
You could count as them as something though. I have seen bretonnia count as armies as flesh eater courts and slaves to darkness. Slaves to darkness just got new tome that buffs their cavalry quite a lot.
bullyboy wrote: Having come into a large collection of unbuilt Bretonnians, is there a way to play these in AOS, or do I just need to wait til Old World rolls around?
Keep them as they are, paint them, have an awesome oldschool army ready when TOW finally drops.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.
So what would count as an incomplete army by your standard, if a faction consisting of 1 box of infantry, 1 box of monstrous infantry and 1 monster doesn't cut it? A box of literally just legs on bases?
Voss wrote: You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.
So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.
This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.
OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.
Hm, I disagree on FRC but only somewhat. I feel like they did a great job creating a lot of options from a narrow number of kits and allowing unridden terries/dragons did a lot to flesh out non-character options. But at the same time I see your point.
As for OBR, totally agree. There are tactical and thematic niches unfilled there.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.
So what would count as an incomplete army by your standard, if a faction consisting of 1 box of infantry, 1 box of monstrous infantry and 1 monster doesn't cut it? A box of literally just legs on bases?
Covering what makes the army incomplete instead of listing model releases and aethetic preferences.
Here's the thing, GW can make a single model work as an army. Flesheaters can take a whole army of Zombiedragons and only one has to have a lord on top. As an army it works.
It's 100% nothing but spam of 1 model, but it does work.
The thing is most people consider an army complete when the army has multiple builds, multiple model kits and a diversity of options both in tactical senses and visual. This generally corresponds to a wealth of kits.
Different heroes, both generic and named; different troops, cavalry, monsters, artillery* etc....
Ossiarchs have clear tactical gaps because they were clearly designed with a second wave of models in mind. Flesheaters on the other hand were kind of designed not to have that because they were clearly intended to operate as they are right now for a prolonged period of time before GW would get to adding to them.
Yes FEC work as an army, all the AoS armies work. However a good many are working whilst having very limited options. Heck even Daughters of Khaine are pretty limited with most of their kids doing duel roles to bulk things out, but often its just a weapon swap. Which is interesting at a time when GW is making weapon swaps almost null for many other armies. If they broguht that theory to DoK then their army diversity would suddenly drop by near half for their troops (the only one that would survive is likely the snakes and even then they could be put on one profile just with archers or spears)
*Heck most armies don't even have any artillery. AoS has 4 unit types and 1 of which is almost empty for a good portion of forces.
Voss wrote: You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.
So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.
This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.
OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.
Hm, I disagree on FRC but only somewhat. I feel like they did a great job creating a lot of options from a narrow number of kits and allowing unridden terries/dragons did a lot to flesh out non-character options. But at the same time I see your point.
As for OBR, totally agree. There are tactical and thematic niches unfilled there.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.
So what would count as an incomplete army by your standard, if a faction consisting of 1 box of infantry, 1 box of monstrous infantry and 1 monster doesn't cut it? A box of literally just legs on bases?
Covering what makes the army incomplete instead of listing model releases and aethetic preferences.
You just look for trouble often, its amazing how many times you end up in negative exchanges. Here is a hint- it probably isn't everyone else in the wrong.
Meanwhile, Voss really hit the nail on the head and could have gone deeper. AoS is in a bad place. Its sad because the wolf riders are great models, but the armies themselves are so messed up they don't fit at all with the army they've been put in (GSG).
My goodness, seeing the new Underworlds warband just announced, what I wouldn't give for whole unit options for both the squigapults and squig-spear gobbos!
Voss wrote: You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.
So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.
This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.
You decreed none of them were incomplete. With italics.
If that wasn't your intent, maybe change your posting style.
Clockpunk wrote: My goodness, seeing the new Underworlds warband just announced, what I wouldn't give for whole unit options for both the squigapults and squig-spear gobbos!
One of the few surviving AoS Forgeworld models is already there for you
You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.
So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.
This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.
You decreed none of them were incomplete. With italics.
If that wasn't your intent, maybe change your posting style.
Nope. Not something I did.
And again, I never expressed any disagreement with the points made; only that they were outside the topic I was asking about.
Voss wrote: You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.
So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.
This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.
OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.
Hm, I disagree on FRC but only somewhat. I feel like they did a great job creating a lot of options from a narrow number of kits and allowing unridden terries/dragons did a lot to flesh out non-character options. But at the same time I see your point.
As for OBR, totally agree. There are tactical and thematic niches unfilled there.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.
So what would count as an incomplete army by your standard, if a faction consisting of 1 box of infantry, 1 box of monstrous infantry and 1 monster doesn't cut it? A box of literally just legs on bases?
Covering what makes the army incomplete instead of listing model releases and aethetic preferences.
You just look for trouble often, its amazing how many times you end up in negative exchanges. Here is a hint- it probably isn't everyone else in the wrong.
Meanwhile, Voss really hit the nail on the head and could have gone deeper. AoS is in a bad place. Its sad because the wolf riders are great models, but the armies themselves are so messed up they don't fit at all with the army they've been put in (GSG).
It is funny, because I explicitly stated that I am not expressing any disagreement. So I would really like to see some evidence of where I said he was wrong.
tneva82 wrote: Keep in mind that doesn't mean that 1 book is ONLY summer book. StD was taunted as only winter book in last roadmap
As for big releases summer will be 40k 10th edition so big pile of miniatures coming then as is.
Indeed.
In that and this one it never said just one, it just was as far as they were showing.
AoS books upcoming for spring.
My guesses for what’s coming (Order, Chaos, Chaos, Death, Death):
Kharadron, Slaanesh, Khorne, flesh eater court and Bonereapers?
Seraphon for the following Order one.
Leaving what Soulblight with an unknown date.
I think it’s clear to all that for after that it is Cities coming later.
With the work so far and amount previewed and on and on..
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
Seraphon (which have gotten functionally skipped (in terms of models) every edition so far)
Beasts (have a character model to replace the character models you've already got, alternately, a terrain piece.
He-man Skeletons, which turned into a one and done project
Fish elves, for the same reason
Witch elves, which had a promising start with the harpies and medusas, then somehow turned into character, character, character. (And i can't figure out why, with 3 editions of AoS, they've had so many iterations of basically nothing)
Orcs without goblins, which have the new guys, the last push for savage orc plastic kits, and a couple bad renditions of black orcs, but don't really congeal into a functional army.
Giants
the crazy vampires with the weird plastic mutant orcs passing as ghouls. Where it took years and years just to get a vampire character that wasn't ripped off the back of a zombie dragon.
Fire dwarves
Special mention for Malekith's brand of elfs, which three editions in and it hasn't even materialized yet!
and Cities of Sigmar, which have _lost_ stuff every iteration, and will probably be binned completely and replaced by the Dawnbringer army (or at least that was my impression from latest Dawnbringer preview, where they started using 'Dawnbringer Crusade' and 'Cities of Sigmar' interchangeably).
Some of the others (fallout dwarves, skaven, sylvaneth) still need work, but don't feel actively incomplete and neglected anymore
Age of Sigmar has improved a lot, but somehow they still really let some factions rot and over-updated others (especially light elfs and sigmarines)
And clearly with beasts and gloomspite, this isn't changing anytime soon.
I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.
That really wasn't clear from the post Voss responded to - Goose referenced "half finished and neglected" armies. Your response asked him to point out "which and why?", and only at the end did you pivot to "incomplete" - something that wasn't what was being talked about until that point, and which you failed to define at that stage in the thread.
Voss' response certainly hits the "neglected" side of things, and arguably the "half finished", too.
There's also an argument that any faction without a faction terrain piece and a set of endless spells (or equivalent) could be said to be incomplete, let alone needing artillery.
Meanwhile, Voss really hit the nail on the head and could have gone deeper. AoS is in a bad place. Its sad because the wolf riders are great models, but the armies themselves are so messed up they don't fit at all with the army they've been put in (GSG).
They're Goblins riding wolves. What other army would you put them in??
Meanwhile they'll fit perfectly into myGSG force. Of course the majority of mine is simply all my ancient WHFB goblins from 3e-around 5e/6e. A % of the archers/spears are Forest goblins, but very few are wearing the night goblin robes & hoods.
Meanwhile, Voss really hit the nail on the head and could have gone deeper. AoS is in a bad place. Its sad because the wolf riders are great models, but the armies themselves are so messed up they don't fit at all with the army they've been put in (GSG).
They're Goblins riding wolves. What other army would you put them in??
Meanwhile they'll fit perfectly into myGSG force. Of course the majority of mine is simply all my ancient WHFB goblins from 3e-around 5e/6e. A % of the archers/spears are Forest goblins, but very few are wearing the night goblin robes & hoods.
The GSG lore talked of other goblins that worshiped the Evil Sun. Khardron talked of goblin sky pirates. Those two threads could have been combined into a new goblin faction that could have incorporated wolf riders. If the GSG release is more than just a unit box of wolf riders and they want to add some more to the subfaction, could see return of the wolf chariot and wolf riding hero.
Not happy with the wolf riders being added to GSG because it is another subfaction in a book that has horrible synergy in and between it's subfactions. Worried the book will remain a mess.
Meanwhile, Voss really hit the nail on the head and could have gone deeper. AoS is in a bad place. Its sad because the wolf riders are great models, but the armies themselves are so messed up they don't fit at all with the army they've been put in (GSG).
They're Goblins riding wolves. What other army would you put them in??
Meanwhile they'll fit perfectly into myGSG force. Of course the majority of mine is simply all my ancient WHFB goblins from 3e-around 5e/6e. A % of the archers/spears are Forest goblins, but very few are wearing the night goblin robes & hoods.
The GSG lore talked of other goblins that worshiped the Evil Sun. Khardron talked of goblin sky pirates. Those two threads could have been combined into a new goblin faction that could have incorporated wolf riders. If the GSG release is more than just a unit box of wolf riders and they want to add some more to the subfaction, could see return of the wolf chariot and wolf riding hero.
Not happy with the wolf riders being added to GSG because it is another subfaction in a book that has horrible synergy in and between it's subfactions. Worried the book will remain a mess.
Did the Subfaction issues get solved in the Ogre tome? I feel like GW would try to address this in the new GSG book, as that is by far the largest complaint about it. inner issues with Subfactions also seem to be less of a thing so far in 3.0 tomes for hte most part.
Meanwhile, Voss really hit the nail on the head and could have gone deeper. AoS is in a bad place. Its sad because the wolf riders are great models, but the armies themselves are so messed up they don't fit at all with the army they've been put in (GSG).
They're Goblins riding wolves. What other army would you put them in??
Meanwhile they'll fit perfectly into myGSG force. Of course the majority of mine is simply all my ancient WHFB goblins from 3e-around 5e/6e. A % of the archers/spears are Forest goblins, but very few are wearing the night goblin robes & hoods.
The GSG lore talked of other goblins that worshiped the Evil Sun. Khardron talked of goblin sky pirates. Those two threads could have been combined into a new goblin faction that could have incorporated wolf riders. If the GSG release is more than just a unit box of wolf riders and they want to add some more to the subfaction, could see return of the wolf chariot and wolf riding hero.
Not happy with the wolf riders being added to GSG because it is another subfaction in a book that has horrible synergy in and between it's subfactions. Worried the book will remain a mess.
I'd be quite happy with a goblin tome as thick as the Stormcasts or as varied as my Cities.
Meanwhile, Voss really hit the nail on the head and could have gone deeper. AoS is in a bad place. Its sad because the wolf riders are great models, but the armies themselves are so messed up they don't fit at all with the army they've been put in (GSG).
They're Goblins riding wolves. What other army would you put them in??
Meanwhile they'll fit perfectly into myGSG force. Of course the majority of mine is simply all my ancient WHFB goblins from 3e-around 5e/6e. A % of the archers/spears are Forest goblins, but very few are wearing the night goblin robes & hoods.
The GSG lore talked of other goblins that worshiped the Evil Sun. Khardron talked of goblin sky pirates. Those two threads could have been combined into a new goblin faction that could have incorporated wolf riders. If the GSG release is more than just a unit box of wolf riders and they want to add some more to the subfaction, could see return of the wolf chariot and wolf riding hero.
Not happy with the wolf riders being added to GSG because it is another subfaction in a book that has horrible synergy in and between it's subfactions. Worried the book will remain a mess.
Since the wolfriders are just one unit...it's hardly justifying selling a separate battletome for that. Maybe there's also a character coming with them, we don't know yet.
Bet the reason is simply they don't have enough new miniatures to make it their own separate faction. Putting them with the other goblins at least makes sense...and even if they're riding wolves, they're still nasty, evil gitz.
Having different styles inside the same faction with varied subfactions in it isn't a complete mess, to me. It just shows the faction itself isn't organized and made of different cultures (or kultures). It's totally fitting the greenskins' style, in fact.
In terms of game rules, that's another story...since the current edition is more competitive oriented, I guess we'll have a different way than the 2nd edition.
I had read somewhere that the current Start Collecting for StD was going to stop being available and when I looked at the online store it is still available in the USA but the UK and Australia both have it listed as "No Longer Available Online". So not sure what that means exactly.
Overread wrote: GW is slowly moving toward those Vanguard sized sets.
Yep. It's true for all of them. Better pick up what interest you while you still can !
On the plus side this means GW has to do some major work for Flesheaters cause for a Vanguard they basically just have the option of two getting started sets and a single plastic leader. Which would then mean that there'd only be 1 finecast model in their range that wouldn't be in their "getting started/vanguard" set.
The Snarlfang Riders are outstanding models, but feel like a WFB retread that is out of place in GSG.
Since there is time between the preview and when GSG and Beastmen are being released, I do wonder if we will see a couple more kits for either book in the same vein as this edition's Nighthaunt release. Not a major update, but 2-3 kits that expand the range. I guess GSG already are getting that between the wolf riders and Underworlds warband, but I could see a Snarlfang hero being released alongside the unit. As for BoC, I am still holding out for a plastic Jabberslythe and maybe one other kit.
Equinox wrote: The Snarlfang Riders are outstanding models, but feel like a WFB retread that is out of place in GSG.
Since there is time between the preview and when GSG and Beastmen are being released, I do wonder if we will see a couple more kits for either book in the same vein as this edition's Nighthaunt release. Not a major update, but 2-3 kits that expand the range. I guess GSG already are getting that between the wolf riders and Underworlds warband, but I could see a Snarlfang hero being released alongside the unit. As for BoC, I am still holding out for a plastic Jabberslythe and maybe one other kit.
I'd say theres' gonna be good money on a bet they show up prominently in the old world....
Ahtman wrote: I had read somewhere that the current Start Collecting for StD was going to stop being available and when I looked at the online store it is still available in the USA but the UK and Australia both have it listed as "No Longer Available Online". So not sure what that means exactly.
That just like every other sc it gets replaced by vanquard come new book. It's been pattern aos3. No reason to think std were different.
To each their own, I really like the look of them. I wish they were coming as a part of a Gotmob battletome (Destruction could certainly use some more armies) but I am much happier seeing the unit in GSG than not at all. Fingers crossed for a character build in there!
Better proportions, smaller weapons and wolves that look like big scary wolves instead of 3D prints of a Disney animation. Wolf riders always looked bland anyway.
Goose LeChance wrote: Better proportions, smaller weapons and wolves that look like big scary wolves instead of 3D prints of a Disney animation. Wolf riders always looked bland anyway.
You must be looking at something different than i am, because the proportions look fine from the image we have and the wolves, are wolves. Shockingly enough.
This release just shows what a mess AoS is. Why are sun worshipping wolf riders (strictly worse sculpts than Rippa's Snarlfangs too, well done GW) souped into the army of moon worshipping cave dwellers? At this rate AoS is going to end up as WFB skirmish without the charm.
JSG wrote: This release just shows what a mess AoS is. Why are sun worshipping wolf riders (strictly worse sculpts than Rippa's Snarlfangs too, well done GW) souped into the army of moon worshipping cave dwellers? At this rate AoS is going to end up as WFB skirmish without the charm.
I hope GW isn't trying to mix AoS and ToW together because they're gonna end up making everyone unhappy.
Also in general the concept of an army or faction can be quite broad or quite niche. Look at Skaven, one side use high tech machines and are essentially an elite army, another side uses huge monsters, another relies on swarms of pox ridden rats and numbers and almost super primitive tech.
They are all skaven, but different aspects of them.
Gloomspite Gitz could easily be going the same way of having different niches within the whole, one of which are the wolfriders. It might well be a sane way for Gw to expand the concept without having to invest in an entirely new army from scratch.
Also nothing says you can't have sun and moon worshippers operate in the same army, someone has to do scouting during the day when the moon worshippers are all abed after a long night of screaming at the moon.
Overread wrote: AoS had had Old World themes in it since day 1.
Also in general the concept of an army or faction can be quite broad or quite niche. Look at Skaven, one side use high tech machines and are essentially an elite army, another side uses huge monsters, another relies on swarms of pox ridden rats and numbers and almost super primitive tech.
They are all skaven, but different aspects of them.
Gloomspite Gitz could easily be going the same way of having different niches within the whole, one of which are the wolfriders. It might well be a sane way for Gw to expand the concept without having to invest in an entirely new army from scratch.
Also nothing says you can't have sun and moon worshippers operate in the same army, someone has to do scouting during the day when the moon worshippers are all abed after a long night of screaming at the moon.
Purest copium. For your Skaven analogy to work the Battletome would have to be Battletome: Clan Eshin but include everything anyway because they're all rats. There are more Dark Elf factions than Greenskin ones. AoS is just a dogs breakfast of half baked ideas and U-turns.
I love the wolf riders, I don't understand everyone's issue, there has always been 3 types of goblins, the mongol ones, forest, and night. I am pretty sure the mongol ones even came first. I love the callback to those old models as they were my favourite.
I really hope they release a whole range of this type of goblin, why not cycle through themes until the range really needs a refresh. If they do common goblins now and then forest goblins in three years it will be time to cycle back around to night goblins for a refresh after they have been around for 10 years.
It's what I wish they would do with guard. These new cadians dont match the old ones anyway, why not just do a whole range of something completely new, or tallarn or something fresh
Overread wrote: AoS had had Old World themes in it since day 1.
Also in general the concept of an army or faction can be quite broad or quite niche. Look at Skaven, one side use high tech machines and are essentially an elite army, another side uses huge monsters, another relies on swarms of pox ridden rats and numbers and almost super primitive tech.
They are all skaven, but different aspects of them.
Gloomspite Gitz could easily be going the same way of having different niches within the whole, one of which are the wolfriders. It might well be a sane way for Gw to expand the concept without having to invest in an entirely new army from scratch.
Also nothing says you can't have sun and moon worshippers operate in the same army, someone has to do scouting during the day when the moon worshippers are all abed after a long night of screaming at the moon.
Purest copium. For your Skaven analogy to work the Battletome would have to be Battletome: Clan Eshin but include everything anyway because they're all rats. There are more Dark Elf factions than Greenskin ones. AoS is just a dogs breakfast of half baked ideas and U-turns.
"Copium". God i despise these made up words that try and seep into conversation, grow up. And what's the problem with having different goblin types mingling together? It's called growth and development, which is what the game needs and should have.
So if these new wolf riders had the option for unhelmeted heads, would they no longer be mongol like? Is it just the heads? Did the old ones have non Mongolian style helmets or were their only “normal” goblin options bare heads? If so how is that kit any different than the new one? I’m really not seeing the issue with why these couldn’t work in TOW
How even should a sensible, generic goblin wolf rider for Warhammer Fantasy look, if not like these? Different helmet, or none at all so as to avoid a look inspired by any real world designs? They're light cavalry, so the armour should be light and sparse. The exaggerated weapons are an unfortunate hallmark of Citadel Miniatures, but if they weren't Wonky Goblin Shaped then they'd probably just be sabres, either directly inspired by or a convergent design to that of the Mongols. The proportions are fine and necessary, they look the same as all the goblin kits in recent years.
You can just not like them, but if there's not actually a generic alternative then it's all a bit apropos of nothing. If the problem with goblin wolf riders made for Age of Sigmar is simply that they look like they were designed by Games Workshop, then I've got some unfortunate news about Warhammer: The Old World.
If you think tow will be radically different to how fb looked i have got bad news for you. Gw won't change their style for it. And these are very much fb style. Gw could easily put these to tow and they wouldn't look out of place.
tneva82 wrote: If you think tow will be radically different to how fb looked i have got bad news for you. Gw won't change their style for it. And these are very much fb style. Gw could easily put these to tow and they wouldn't look out of place.
What style would that be, AoS style? Blood Bowl style? LoTR style? Old WHFB models look nothing like current AoS models.
There's no point in meshing AoS and WHFB together, they already make money off the people who like AoS. Worst case scenario is I stick with my old models and continuing spending nothing on GW.
...MAYBE I get a couple new empire units if they don't screw it up too badly.
Whether or not the models will be usable in WFB mk 2 is beyond my ability to debate.
My "issue" with the new models is that the theme of cave-dwelling, moon-worshipping, goblins and trolls seems like one that offers a pretty large canvas for creative opportunities. Instead of coming up with something new that fits into that concept, we are getting models that share only superficial similarities and play on nostalgia. It would have been a much more exciting release to see something that visual fits more directly with the current GSG range.
Because, again, Gloomspite are not the only faction in the book. Spiderfang are their own thing and there is no issue if they want to expand and look at other goblin types.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Because, again, Gloomspite are not the only faction in the book. Spiderfang are their own thing and there is no issue if they want to expand and look at other goblin types.
Which is an indication of GW's laziness and lack of creative depth when it comes to the range. Would you have the same opinion of the release if it was a winged/avian themed elf that was added to the Idoneth battletome? You know seagulls eat crabs, so bird-elves fit with fish-elves if I use that logic. Why expand the resources to create a new product that only shares superficial similarities to the existing range when something with closer ties would garner a better reception (potentially).
It could also be argued that a single kit does not constitute or justify a faction. Unless there are additional kits to be revealed, you cannot field a Snarlfang only army, which I would consider a basic requirement of being a faction. At least with Spiderfang, it is possible to field a complete army composed of just that faction regardless of tabletop viability.
See thing is even Old World and 40K armies have had units that stand out. Heck Tau have almost two armies in one with Tau and Kroot/xenos allies taking very different design pathways.
Bigger armies are going t oget things that don't look 100% identical to everything else.
Witch Aelves are a great example in the Dark Elves army of old. An army full of rank and file orderly, neat and heavily armoured elves then BOOM a bunch of circus style dancing elves with almost no armour, nor formal rank and file appearance and dancing around with blades.
Armies visually diversify. Would I welcome seagull Idoneth - sure why not? After all there are vast numbers of birds that migrate and fly over the seas to say nothing of the famous seagull (which isn't even an actual species of bird). So yeah a squad of specialist winged warriors would be fine.
There are limits, but goblins riding wolves and riding spiders as opposed to riding squigs - yeah I'm ok with that level of diversity.
As you say 1 model does not an army make. GW might put those wolf riders in for years and never expand the idea; or they might one day make a whole wolf and goblin themed army. Or perhaps an animal and goblin themed army with wolves, cats, bears, owls and spiders. Who knows.
I think it would all be fixed with a rename like the Ogres got, Beastclaw became Mawtribes right.
Gloomspite as the book name but with non Gloomspite units is the problem.
If it were just called Gitmobs would people still have an issue?
I find it understandable that people would at least want to have a subfaction leader option so even if the wolf riders can't make a full army, their detachment within the gits army at least looks like it has its own organization instead of being a lone, random addition.
In the Kroot example people liked to have Shapers and Angkhor Prok just for this reason, and it's not just Kroot that were in all codices, but also hounds and oxen. That offers a bit more variety, even if they started out as a single unit entry. There's more to build a theme and fluff around, even if you need a larger Tau force to make it work.
Overread wrote: See thing is even Old World and 40K armies have had units that stand out. Heck Tau have almost two armies in one with Tau and Kroot/xenos allies taking very different design pathways.
Bigger armies are going t oget things that don't look 100% identical to everything else.
Witch Aelves are a great example in the Dark Elves army of old. An army full of rank and file orderly, neat and heavily armored elves then BOOM a bunch of circus style dancing elves with almost no armour, nor formal rank and file appearance and dancing around with blades.
Armies visually diversify. Would I welcome seagull Idoneth - sure why not? After all there are vast numbers of birds that migrate and fly over the seas to say nothing of the famous seagull (which isn't even an actual species of bird). (What is your point with the comment?) So yeah a squad of specialist winged warriors would be fine.
There are limits, but goblins riding wolves and riding spiders as opposed to riding squigs - yeah I'm ok with that level of diversity.
As you say 1 model does not an army make. GW might put those wolf riders in for years and never expand the idea; or they might one day make a whole wolf and goblin themed army. Or perhaps an animal and goblin themed army with wolves, cats, bears, owls and spiders. Who knows.
Tau are a bad example since the army since it conception has been about how they incorporate various races into their empire. Kroot and Vespid models also share design elements with Tau models (armour, icons, weapons, etc.). The same could also be said about any army in WFB as that was a different game. Dogs of War (my favorite army from WFB) were the poster child of armies in WFB that lacked visual cohesion because the range was so varied in its design. You could compensate for that variation to some degree via a shared color palette, but individual units still stood out as odd when compared to others in the army (chaos bearmen with heavily armored crossbowmen). Given the failure of DoW as an army, I would suspect that a lack of visual cohesion across the army contributed to its lack of adoption in later editions and early demise.
Diversity in the overall AOS range is not the same discussion as diversity within a single battletome. A model may fit within the overall style of AOS, but not be appropriate to a particular faction or battletome.
I don't have any issue with the models being added to AOS, it is them being shoehorned into GSG that disappoints me. You clearly are of the opinion that anything new is a good thing regardless of how it is implemented, but that is not a view I share. I like GSG and want to purchase more for the army, but I want those purchases to share common elements with my existing collection.
Overread wrote: See thing is even Old World and 40K armies have had units that stand out. Heck Tau have almost two armies in one with Tau and Kroot/xenos allies taking very different design pathways.
Bigger armies are going t oget things that don't look 100% identical to everything else.
Witch Aelves are a great example in the Dark Elves army of old. An army full of rank and file orderly, neat and heavily armoured elves then BOOM a bunch of circus style dancing elves with almost no armour, nor formal rank and file appearance and dancing around with blades.
Armies visually diversify. Would I welcome seagull Idoneth - sure why not? After all there are vast numbers of birds that migrate and fly over the seas to say nothing of the famous seagull (which isn't even an actual species of bird). So yeah a squad of specialist winged warriors would be fine.
There are limits, but goblins riding wolves and riding spiders as opposed to riding squigs - yeah I'm ok with that level of diversity.
As you say 1 model does not an army make. GW might put those wolf riders in for years and never expand the idea; or they might one day make a whole wolf and goblin themed army. Or perhaps an animal and goblin themed army with wolves, cats, bears, owls and spiders. Who knows.
Aren't the Idoneth at the bottom of the ocean to deprive themselves of sensation? How would Gull Aelves do this?
Danny76 wrote: A good way to expand the Destruction range.
Gloomspite Gitz
Gitmobs or whatever you can call a second Goblin tome.
It does make me wonder what GW's internal opinion of the destruction ranges are since they seem hesitant to expand them. We can have 3+ elf books, but all orruks or goblins are lumped into a single book. With this edition being themed around destruction, it is disappointing that we haven't gotten anything major since 3rd edition launched.
Aren't the Idoneth at the bottom of the ocean to deprive themselves of sensation? How would Gull Aelves do this?
By not hiding at the bottom of the Ocean.
It easily fits into the lore for them, with the Idoneth forced into alliance with the Daughters of Khaine and forced into more and more land based combat (because that's where 99.9% of the other factions in the world are) it would make sense that at some point some of them might grow a greater tolerance or need to be surface side. Why not avail yourself of winged air units who can take to the skies and scout far above and ahead of your sea forces, without the need for the aether sea to be present. Especially if you're being forced to conduct major campaigns of war and not just raiding parties and raids on the coastlines.
Aren't the Idoneth at the bottom of the ocean to deprive themselves of sensation? How would Gull Aelves do this?
By not hiding at the bottom of the Ocean.
It easily fits into the lore for them, with the Idoneth forced into alliance with the Daughters of Khaine and forced into more and more land based combat (because that's where 99.9% of the other factions in the world are) it would make sense that at some point some of them might grow a greater tolerance or need to be surface side. Why not avail yourself of winged air units who can take to the skies and scout far above and ahead of your sea forces, without the need for the aether sea to be present. Especially if you're being forced to conduct major campaigns of war and not just raiding parties and raids on the coastlines.
Aren't the Idoneth at the bottom of the ocean to deprive themselves of sensation? How would Gull Aelves do this?
By not hiding at the bottom of the Ocean.
It easily fits into the lore for them, with the Idoneth forced into alliance with the Daughters of Khaine and forced into more and more land based combat (because that's where 99.9% of the other factions in the world are) it would make sense that at some point some of them might grow a greater tolerance or need to be surface side. Why not avail yourself of winged air units who can take to the skies and scout far above and ahead of your sea forces, without the need for the aether sea to be present. Especially if you're being forced to conduct major campaigns of war and not just raiding parties and raids on the coastlines.
Genius! You've created elves.
Last time I checked elves don't have seagull wings
I mean granted the Daughters of Khaine have bat-winged Khinerai and serpent melusai and Malarion's army is rumoured to have dragonish elements to his elves as well as lots of shadow
I don't have any issue with the models being added to AOS, it is them being shoehorned into GSG that disappoints me. You clearly are of the opinion that anything new is a good thing regardless of how it is implemented, but that is not a view I share. I like GSG and want to purchase more for the army, but I want those purchases to share common elements with my existing collection.
It's more of a timing thing, the way I see it. Remember when AOS Batltetomes first started to come out and we had multiple ones for several former WHFB Armies that were now instead split into subfactions - Orcs and Goblins were split into two, then three when the first Gitz book came out. "Wet" undead were also split into two, then three books when Nighthaunt were released. (I won't even go into Chaos' 72 different sub-factions with their own books!) It seemed that the plan at the time was to split every surviving WHFB army into sub-categories, so we saw Pestilens had their own book, Beastclaw Raiders had their own book, Slayers and Witch Elves and Treemen/Dryads were split off their existing armies since they were more distinctly IP-protectable than the more generic Dark Elves and Dwarves and Wood Elves that they were formerly a part of (which is why we got the Gitz as well)
There's since been some re-condensation as several of those split model ranges alone were pretty anemic - Orcs being re-combined and Ogres and Skaven getting their buddies back - but they've since added in a reworking of VERY old-school WHFB 1st edition Orcs & Hobgoblins, and so I wouldn't be surprised with subsequent waves of gobboes expanding on the old "regular" goblins until they do get their own book. They'll probably revisit Forest Goblins while on that particular path as well, since everything old is always new again at GW (and I'm not even complaiing about that!) I wouldn't be surprised to see a second (or third, even) Goblin book down the line once they have more new models and feel that the ranges can support themselves in terms of sales and simply retail space.
It does make me wonder what GW's internal opinion of the destruction ranges are since they seem hesitant to expand them. We can have 3+ elf books, but all orruks or goblins are lumped into a single book. With this edition being themed around destruction, it is disappointing that we haven't gotten anything major since 3rd edition launched.
We got new (old) Orcs and Hobgobs as an addiitonal book. That's what this edition started with. The design ethos is different, but they're still Orcs - just the very old-school Jes Goodwin design rather than the Kev Adams design that became Warhammer's mainstay (not to mention WoW, etc)... They're the equivalent of the Sea/Fish Elves in some ways (that were also a concept floating arounf GW for decades).
And if this one testbed Gitmob unit doesn't sell GW will not conclude it's not selling because it's one unit being shoehorned into a book totally out of context, they will conclude people hate Gitmob and this one random unit will forever be a lone eyesore in the GSG book.
But hey, stans gonna stan, sometimes you gota bend backwards a little less, sometimes a little more, as long as you can make excuses for The Brand.
Calling me a stan is pretty laughable and I don't have a facepalm big enough to respond to this level of imbecilic trolling from you, so I'm gonna chuck you on ignore instead.
I will suggest that the Underworlds models must have sold pretty well otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these.
I will suggest that the Underworlds models must have sold pretty well otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these.
Goblin Wolfrider has to be one of the most versatile and uncontroversial sculpts in the fantasy genre, you can use it in almost any fantasy setting that is vaguely inspired by Tolkien and ''Generic Brand Fantasy'', from D&D to boardgames or just for painting it up. Only assorted giant vermin or perhaps skeleton warriors are even more generic than basic gobbos
Overread wrote: Also as GW is partly design led, maybe someone in the design studio just really likes wolf riding gobbos.
Absolutely. But a big part of GW's thing over the past ...quite a few years now is bringing old stuff back as well. It started with 40k and things like GSC and more recently we've been seeing it in AoS with High Elves, Jes' WHFB1 orcs, and I think we'll see more and more as they mine their existing IP for designs and concepts that they can reuse with a bit of a tweak or more significant new spin.
The most interesting part of this is that (as Tsagualsa notes) goblin wolfriders are a pretty generic fantasy concept, which is quite different to the "it needs to be distinctly warhammer" ethos that has been more prdominant to date.
I will suggest that the Underworlds models must have sold pretty well otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these.
I don't know if we can use that as a justification for anything since the lead time on new stuff is 18+ months and those models are not even available online (best I can tell). They could re-release the unit with the GSG book, but we don't know that for certain at this point. Best I think we can conclude was that someone in the studio either wanted to or was instructed to create a modern version of the old wolf-riders and came up with a couple different units.
It's more of a timing thing, the way I see it. Remember when AOS Batltetomes first started to come out and we had multiple ones for several former WHFB Armies that were now instead split into subfactions - Orcs and Goblins were split into two, then three when the first Gitz book came out. "Wet" undead were also split into two, then three books when Nighthaunt were released. (I won't even go into Chaos' 72 different sub-factions with their own books!) It seemed that the plan at the time was to split every surviving WHFB army into sub-categories, so we saw Pestilens had their own book, Beastclaw Raiders had their own book, Slayers and Witch Elves and Treemen/Dryads were split off their existing armies since they were more distinctly IP-protectable than the more generic Dark Elves and Dwarves and Wood Elves that they were formerly a part of (which is why we got the Gitz as well)
I hear you. It just seems to be a haphazard approach that is applied inconsistently across the game after 5+ years. The contrast between how dwarves and goblins are handled is a good example. Fyreslayers are kept as a separate book/faction with a shared aesthetic and a small range, but goblins and orruks are all just lumped together. Comparing slayers (~16) to moonclan (~22), and removing Kragnos, spiders and giants (oh my) from the count, the two ranges are roughly the same size, so there is a logic to saying that if one has a standalone tome, the other should as well given the same information.
A different way to look at this is that GW lacks a good mechanism for testing new ideas and model ranges without fully committing to them.
Overread wrote: Also as GW is partly design led, maybe someone in the design studio just really likes wolf riding gobbos.
That is likely the case, but doesn't make for a good approach to handling the overall brand.
I will suggest that the Underworlds models must have sold pretty well otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these.
I don't know if we can use that as a justification for anything since the lead time on new stuff is 18+ months and those models are not even available online (best I can tell). They could re-release the unit with the GSG book, but we don't know that for certain at this point. Best I think we can conclude was that someone in the studio either wanted to or was instructed to create a modern version of the old wolf-riders and came up with a couple different units.
It's more of a timing thing, the way I see it. Remember when AOS Batltetomes first started to come out and we had multiple ones for several former WHFB Armies that were now instead split into subfactions - Orcs and Goblins were split into two, then three when the first Gitz book came out. "Wet" undead were also split into two, then three books when Nighthaunt were released. (I won't even go into Chaos' 72 different sub-factions with their own books!) It seemed that the plan at the time was to split every surviving WHFB army into sub-categories, so we saw Pestilens had their own book, Beastclaw Raiders had their own book, Slayers and Witch Elves and Treemen/Dryads were split off their existing armies since they were more distinctly IP-protectable than the more generic Dark Elves and Dwarves and Wood Elves that they were formerly a part of (which is why we got the Gitz as well)
I hear you. It just seems to be a haphazard approach that is applied inconsistently across the game after 5+ years. The contrast between how dwarves and goblins are handled is a good example. Fyreslayers are kept as a separate book/faction with a shared aesthetic and a small range, but goblins and orruks are all just lumped together. Comparing slayers (~16) to moonclan (~22), and removing Kragnos, spiders and giants (oh my) from the count, the two ranges are roughly the same size, so there is a logic to saying that if one has a standalone tome, the other should as well given the same information.
A different way to look at this is that GW lacks a good mechanism for testing new ideas and model ranges without fully committing to them.
Oh, the main thing that GW have been consistent about is being wildly inconsistent. This "split, then recombine" thing has been going on for decades now. 3rd Edition 40k was when we started seeing Codex Catachans, Codex Craftworld Eldar, and on and on it went... Even 7th-9th 40k has been this way, most notably with Space Marine subfactions (Templars ahoy!) but also Admech and so on. They go back and forth between splitting subfactions, throwing new units into books and throwing new units into "campaign" supplements.
My best estimate is the kit was ready, they figured they could release it now, and down the line there will be a Battletome: Gitmobs that they more readily fit into. There's also Grotbag Scuttlers presumably in the pipeline, so it's possible they get rolled into that.
Though TBH I'd like to see a return of the regular Orcs & Goblins as a faction. We have Orc specialists and Goblin specialists, but no norm that they actually deviate from. It would make sense too; the specialists have their strengths while the normals make up for it by being Orcs & Gobbos working together.
NinthMusketeer wrote: My best estimate is the kit was ready, they figured they could release it now, and down the line there will be a Battletome: Gitmobs that they more readily fit into. There's also Grotbag Scuttlers presumably in the pipeline, so it's possible they get rolled into that.
Though TBH I'd like to see a return of the regular Orcs & Goblins as a faction. We have Orc specialists and Goblin specialists, but no norm that they actually deviate from. It would make sense too; the specialists have their strengths while the normals make up for it by being Orcs & Gobbos working together.
I like the new wolf riders, but think my issue with them is how well made their equipment looks. Weapons look suitable "greenskin quality", but the armor doesn't look ramshackle and the shields seem to have a high degree of ornamentation. Perhaps another Chaos Duardin connection, much like the Hobgrots?
Don't really have an issue with their inclusion in the Gloomspite battletome, as I'm sure the lore will explain how they find common cause with their cave dwelling brethren. Wolves are nocturnal hunters and have the added bonus of being able to scout their prey during the day while the Gloomspite hide from the sun and wait for darkness.
I don't understand the complaints about the new wolf riders.
One of the best parts about Warhammer Fantasy was how armies were whole cultures with all of its variety. Greenskins, specially, were basically 4 armies in one, savage orcs, orcs, goblins and nightgoblins with even more crazy stuff like forest goblins, giants and trolls in the mix.
Then AoS came along and made a whole faction of a single thematical unit (Slayers, for example), creating armies flanderized to the extreme and 0 sinergies between units (Like beastclaw raiders and normal foot ogres).
Having stuff like this adding cultural and fluff variety to a battletome its not something bad.
The Night Gobbos battletome is allready 3 factions in one (night goblins, forest goblins and trolls).
I don't know about flanderized; that's when one trait overtakes the entire picture. That's what happened to Khorne, with honor and even strategy buried under bloodkillbloodblood all the time. Fyreslayers aren't actually like Dwarf slayers at all, bar one hero option. They have an entirely new culture written for them. Beastclaw Raiders also had a whole new background to serve as their central theme with the Everwinter. Even the likes of Bonesplitterz or Clan Pestilens have had their narrative elements expanded upon, not diluted. It is the opposite of flanderization.
Seeing folks on Facebook already getting their MTO Archaons. Disclaimer said 180 days, but that thankfully never seems accurate and is more there for a CYA in case something goes wrong.
nels1031 wrote: Seeing folks on Facebook already getting their MTO Archaons. Disclaimer said 180 days, but that thankfully never seems accurate and is more there for a CYA in case something goes wrong.
UPS says they delivered my mounted sorcerer today. Have to check with my parents if it actually arrived since I had it sent there because I'm moving this month and won't be in my new location until after it said they'd send them out.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I don't know about flanderized; that's when one trait overtakes the entire picture. That's what happened to Khorne, with honor and even strategy buried under bloodkillbloodblood all the time. Fyreslayers aren't actually like Dwarf slayers at all, bar one hero option. They have an entirely new culture written for them. Beastclaw Raiders also had a whole new background to serve as their central theme with the Everwinter. Even the likes of Bonesplitterz or Clan Pestilens have had their narrative elements expanded upon, not diluted. It is the opposite of flanderization.
I disagree, I believe its a problem when you take something greater and piecemeal it to its basic thematic components. Ogres had beasts as part of its culture. That was removed and made its own thing, all around winter and beast and winter-beast and frost and ice and... whatever.
As I said, I believe is a net positive for GW to give back cultural variety to factions. It allows for more playstiles and different units in the same battletome.
Galas wrote: I don't understand the complaints about the new wolf riders.
One of the best parts about Warhammer Fantasy was how armies were whole cultures with all of its variety. Greenskins, specially, were basically 4 armies in one, savage orcs, orcs, goblins and nightgoblins with even more crazy stuff like forest goblins, giants and trolls in the mix.
Then AoS came along and made a whole faction of a single thematical unit (Slayers, for example), creating armies flanderized to the extreme and 0 sinergies between units (Like beastclaw raiders and normal foot ogres).
Having stuff like this adding cultural and fluff variety to a battletome its not something bad.
The Night Gobbos battletome is allready 3 factions in one (night goblins, forest goblins and trolls).
And the support for at least one of those is creaky at best (honestly, even the night gobbo element of gitz feels unfinished to me). They could have expanded on what they started rather than pulled a 'well, we made goblin wolfriders again, I guess... uh, sell them with the night goblins?'
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Because, again, Gloomspite are not the only faction in the book. Spiderfang are their own thing and there is no issue if they want to expand and look at other goblin types.
Which is an indication of GW's laziness and lack of creative depth when it comes to the range. Would you have the same opinion of the release if it was a winged/avian themed elf that was added to the Idoneth battletome? You know seagulls eat crabs, so bird-elves fit with fish-elves if I use that logic. Why expand the resources to create a new product that only shares superficial similarities to the existing range when something with closer ties would garner a better reception (potentially).
It could also be argued that a single kit does not constitute or justify a faction. Unless there are additional kits to be revealed, you cannot field a Snarlfang only army, which I would consider a basic requirement of being a faction. At least with Spiderfang, it is possible to field a complete army composed of just that faction regardless of tabletop viability.
Lumineth have different looking elves that hardly look same. Slaves to darkness ditto. Why gobbos should look all same? Guess you just want gits to be one dimensional joke army...so remove spiders, trolls and squigp as well? If not you have no logic in your arqument.
Dok also shouldn't have snakes and witches in same book. Khorne shouldn't have humans and daemons(same for other books). Std remove chaos warriors and cultists to own books. Ogors beastclaw and gutbusters separate. Gargants mancrushers and mega's to their own. Sylvaneth dryads and spirits to own. Etc etc.
You really want to split books to 1 dimensional mini-factions...
Galas wrote: I don't understand the complaints about the new wolf riders.
One of the best parts about Warhammer Fantasy was how armies were whole cultures with all of its variety. Greenskins, specially, were basically 4 armies in one, savage orcs, orcs, goblins and nightgoblins with even more crazy stuff like forest goblins, giants and trolls in the mix.
Then AoS came along and made a whole faction of a single thematical unit (Slayers, for example), creating armies flanderized to the extreme and 0 sinergies between units (Like beastclaw raiders and normal foot ogres).
Having stuff like this adding cultural and fluff variety to a battletome its not something bad.
The Night Gobbos battletome is allready 3 factions in one (night goblins, forest goblins and trolls).
And the support for at least one of those is creaky at best (honestly, even the night gobbo element of gitz feels unfinished to me). They could have expanded on what they started rather than pulled a 'well, we made goblin wolfriders again, I guess... uh, sell them with the night goblins?'
You say the night goblins even feel unfinished.
Well, what more do you want?
We've got;
●A full range of characters,
●Melee goblins,
●Archer goblins,
●Squigs,
●Cavalry- Squig riding goblins
●A big scary monster in the form of the Mangler Squigs,
●an option for a character to ride the Mangler Squigs
●the iconic Netters & Fanatics that were the whole reason to include Night Goblins back in the WHFB days....
●a box full if very flavorful Endless Spells,
●a cool looking & useful terrain piece,
●and a 2nd monstrous squig option & an Artillery unit via FW.
Seriously, what more do you WANT? What do you think is missing?
Galas wrote: I don't understand the complaints about the new wolf riders.
One of the best parts about Warhammer Fantasy was how armies were whole cultures with all of its variety. Greenskins, specially, were basically 4 armies in one, savage orcs, orcs, goblins and nightgoblins with even more crazy stuff like forest goblins, giants and trolls in the mix.
Then AoS came along and made a whole faction of a single thematical unit (Slayers, for example), creating armies flanderized to the extreme and 0 sinergies between units (Like beastclaw raiders and normal foot ogres).
Having stuff like this adding cultural and fluff variety to a battletome its not something bad.
The Night Gobbos battletome is allready 3 factions in one (night goblins, forest goblins and trolls).
And the support for at least one of those is creaky at best (honestly, even the night gobbo element of gitz feels unfinished to me). They could have expanded on what they started rather than pulled a 'well, we made goblin wolfriders again, I guess... uh, sell them with the night goblins?'
You say the night goblins even feel unfinished.
Well, what more do you want?
We've got;
●A full range of characters,
●Melee goblins,
●Archer goblins,
●Squigs,
●Cavalry- Squig riding goblins
●A big scary monster in the form of the Mangler Squigs,
●an option for a character to ride the Mangler Squigs
●the iconic Netters & Fanatics that were the whole reason to include Night Goblins back in the WHFB days....
●a box full if very flavorful Endless Spells,
●a cool looking & useful terrain piece,
●and a 2nd monstrous squig option & an Artillery unit via FW.
Seriously, what more do you WANT? What do you think is missing?
I think it's fair to say the trolls/troggs are very at home with the night gobbos too, in theme if not in rules at present, so that's 2 elite infantry and a monster/hero extra.
well, it just should be the same for everyone and it would at least help if GW told people that they are now combining subfactions into one book again instead of splitting them up
kodos wrote: well, it just should be the same for everyone and it would at least help if GW told people that they are now combining subfactions into one book again instead of splitting them up
I think that the current approach is a pretty direct result of the ''no model no rules'' paradigm combined with the general restart that came with the shift from the Old World to AoS. They basically removed all established faction aesthetics except the most basic design elements, and now have to build up all the factions more or less from scrap. The no-model-no-rules thing forces them to release the rules in portions that coincide with an economically viable number of model kits each quarter, so stuff that has been a subfraction or just shared a number of style elements within a larger army is its own faction for now. We no longer get armybooks where half of the entries never gets around to having an official model, or does not have one for years. I guess that once the foundation of each Grand Alliance is established an furnished with a kit, they will start to recombine subfactions into larger tomes along the lines of the old Orks&Goblins army book, but for now the need to newly define all the aesthetics and their legal outlook on trademarks and stuff pretty much dictates baby steps and thin subfaction ''splash books''.
nels1031 wrote: Seeing folks on Facebook already getting their MTO Archaons. Disclaimer said 180 days, but that thankfully never seems accurate and is more there for a CYA in case something goes wrong.
What I've noticed happens with made-to-order is that GW will cast up a bunch of stuff for release at launch. Thereafter they will do waves of production rather than aim to satisfy all the orders in one big go. So you'll see an initial surge of people getting the model(s) and then, depending on how many were ordered compared to how much stock GW has, you'll see them released in waves thereafter. I know when I was waiting for my Catachan female character I had to wait through several waves of other people getting her before mine was delivered. Those waves can easily end up taking up the 180 days period of estimated wait time.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Because, again, Gloomspite are not the only faction in the book. Spiderfang are their own thing and there is no issue if they want to expand and look at other goblin types.
Which is an indication of GW's laziness and lack of creative depth when it comes to the range. Would you have the same opinion of the release if it was a winged/avian themed elf that was added to the Idoneth battletome? You know seagulls eat crabs, so bird-elves fit with fish-elves if I use that logic. Why expand the resources to create a new product that only shares superficial similarities to the existing range when something with closer ties would garner a better reception (potentially).
It could also be argued that a single kit does not constitute or justify a faction. Unless there are additional kits to be revealed, you cannot field a Snarlfang only army, which I would consider a basic requirement of being a faction. At least with Spiderfang, it is possible to field a complete army composed of just that faction regardless of tabletop viability.
Lumineth have different looking elves that hardly look same. Slaves to darkness ditto. Why gobbos should look all same? Guess you just want gits to be one dimensional joke army...so remove spiders, trolls and squigp as well? If not you have no logic in your arqument.
Ogors beastclaw and gutbusters separate.
You really want to split books to 1 dimensional mini-factions...
Lumineth look different, but are all Lumineth.
Ogors the same. Khorne book isn’t called Mortals of Khorne or Daemons of Khorne. And so on.
The difference for Goblins is they are all in the book named after one part of it, the night goblins.
So if the Ogor one was still called BCR, or if Lumineth was named after one “group” or whatever they’re known as.
So just call the book Gitmobz or whatever and people can’t complain as much.
I feel like the lore side of the book is what’s jarring with people.
Trolls fit in with them anyway still.
Forest and regular goblins don’t fit Gloomspite. So if Gloomspite was just one part of the Gitmob book all would be fine (and then ideally after enough new units and expansion, you could have two books - Night Goblins and Trolls. Then Spider Goblins And Common Goblins once they got more stuff. Sorted).
Tsagualsa wrote: guess that once the foundation of each Grand Alliance is established an furnished with a kit, they will start to recombine subfactions into larger tomes along the lines of the old Orks&Goblins army book, but for now the need to newly define all the aesthetics and their legal outlook on trademarks and stuff pretty much dictates baby steps and thin subfaction ''splash books''.
That certainly won't happen. How many books does Chaos have now? Undead? They won't re-combine anything that has a new and significant model range. Black Orcs and Savage orcs were recombined since their model ranges were too anemic to support full books. Ditto Ogres and Skaven.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Because, again, Gloomspite are not the only faction in the book. Spiderfang are their own thing and there is no issue if they want to expand and look at other goblin types.
Which is an indication of GW's laziness and lack of creative depth when it comes to the range. Would you have the same opinion of the release if it was a winged/avian themed elf that was added to the Idoneth battletome? You know seagulls eat crabs, so bird-elves fit with fish-elves if I use that logic. Why expand the resources to create a new product that only shares superficial similarities to the existing range when something with closer ties would garner a better reception (potentially).
It could also be argued that a single kit does not constitute or justify a faction. Unless there are additional kits to be revealed, you cannot field a Snarlfang only army, which I would consider a basic requirement of being a faction. At least with Spiderfang, it is possible to field a complete army composed of just that faction regardless of tabletop viability.
Lumineth have different looking elves that hardly look same. Slaves to darkness ditto. Why gobbos should look all same? Guess you just want gits to be one dimensional joke army...so remove spiders, trolls and squigp as well? If not you have no logic in your arqument.
Dok also shouldn't have snakes and witches in same book. Khorne shouldn't have humans and daemons(same for other books). Std remove chaos warriors and cultists to own books. Ogors beastclaw and gutbusters separate. Gargants mancrushers and mega's to their own. Sylvaneth dryads and spirits to own. Etc etc.
You really want to split books to 1 dimensional mini-factions...
You ignorance and twisting of statements is almost legendary at this point. Must still be bitter about Sons being released when you insisted it would never happen before GSG. To clarify for you,, I never stated that all goblins should look the same, only that the new models are being shoehorned into the GSG book purely because they are goblins and not because they share a cohesive look with the army. Given the expenditures of resources to create the new models, I would have preferred something that better fit the moonclan aestetic.
Why are wolf riders less gloomspitey than trolls and spider riders? What's so less gloomspite in wolf riders than spider riders?
You just make zero sense and have proven that you just want gloomspites to be one dimensional joke army.
You have proven clearly that according to YOUR logic:
goblins, spiders, spider riders and squigs all should be split apart.
Chaos warriors and cultists should each be own book
Khaine snakes and witch elves each should be own book
Lumineth stone guard, vanarian and hurakans all should be all books
Either this is your logic or you are biased "screw gloomspite gits!". Choose which. These are the two options you have if you want to pretend you make some sort of sense.
tneva82 wrote: Why are wolf riders less gloomspitey than trolls and spider riders? What's so less gloomspite in wolf riders than spider riders?
You just make zero sense and have proven that you just want gloomspites to be one dimensional joke army.
You have proven clearly that according to YOUR logic:
goblins, spiders, spider riders and squigs all should be split apart.
Chaos warriors and cultists should each be own book
Khaine snakes and witch elves each should be own book
Lumineth stone guard, vanarian and hurakans all should be all books
Either this is your logic or you are biased "screw gloomspite gits!". Choose which. These are the two options you have if you want to pretend you make some sort of sense.
It is unfortunate that you are unable to follow my statements and continue to push your false narratives on to me. Clearly you are just looking to be argumentative and take deep offense at anyone that doesn't share your opinions. I hope you enjoy the new models upon release and get many hours of joy from them.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Because, again, Gloomspite are not the only faction in the book. Spiderfang are their own thing and there is no issue if they want to expand and look at other goblin types.
Which is an indication of GW's laziness and lack of creative depth when it comes to the range. Would you have the same opinion of the release if it was a winged/avian themed elf that was added to the Idoneth battletome? You know seagulls eat crabs, so bird-elves fit with fish-elves if I use that logic. Why expand the resources to create a new product that only shares superficial similarities to the existing range when something with closer ties would garner a better reception (potentially).
It could also be argued that a single kit does not constitute or justify a faction. Unless there are additional kits to be revealed, you cannot field a Snarlfang only army, which I would consider a basic requirement of being a faction. At least with Spiderfang, it is possible to field a complete army composed of just that faction regardless of tabletop viability.
Lumineth have different looking elves that hardly look same. Slaves to darkness ditto. Why gobbos should look all same? Guess you just want gits to be one dimensional joke army...so remove spiders, trolls and squigp as well? If not you have no logic in your arqument.
Dok also shouldn't have snakes and witches in same book. Khorne shouldn't have humans and daemons(same for other books). Std remove chaos warriors and cultists to own books. Ogors beastclaw and gutbusters separate. Gargants mancrushers and mega's to their own. Sylvaneth dryads and spirits to own. Etc etc.
You really want to split books to 1 dimensional mini-factions...
You ignorance and twisting of statements is almost legendary at this point. Must still be bitter about Sons being released when you insisted it would never happen before GSG. To clarify for you,, I never stated that all goblins should look the same, only that the new models are being shoehorned into the GSG book purely because they are goblins and not because they share a cohesive look with the army. Given the expenditures of resources to create the new models, I would have preferred something that better fit the moonclan aestetic.
While I don't necessarily agree, I don't really disagree either. I definitely get what you're saying though, it's a reasonable opinion.
For anyone who's complaining about Wolf Riders being put in the Gloomspite Gitz book:
Would you prefer if they just changed the title to "and Goblins" since all the Orcs are in another book? Because that's basically where we're at: the old Orcs and Goblins army, minus the Orcs.
It is unfortunate that you are unable to follow my statements and continue to push your false narratives on to me. Clearly you are just looking to be argumentative and take deep offense at anyone that doesn't share your opinions. I hope you enjoy the new models upon release and get many hours of joy from them.
I follow it. And just point how YOUR logic results in stupid situations like witch elves and blood sisters needing to be split to own books.
If you don't have self-esteem to admit on standing by YOUR logic...Well duh. That's your loss.
I follow it. And just point how YOUR logic results in stupid situations like witch elves and blood sisters needing to be split to own books.
If you don't have self-esteem to admit on standing by YOUR logic...Well duh. That's your loss.
First, your example is a bad one since Daughters are not split (or at risk of being split) as you would suggest and a quick look at a single picture shows you the design elements that are shared across the whole range. The aesthetics of the armor, the headpieces warn by the female models, and the same general facial features/designs of exposed skin or masks. Now compare that with the new snarlfangs and existing GSG models. All GSG models share similar aesthetics (robes, squigs, weapon design, mushrooms, etc...) with each other. The only similarities between GSG and Snarlfangs is the "race" of the models. Note: I recognize spiderfang were shoehorned into the last book, but at least all of the spiderfang models share similar visual elements and you can collect a functional army using just models that fit into that design.
For the last time, I would have liked to have seen something with the current GSG aesthetic (like a unit of the grots firing little squigs with slingshots or a troll throwing a bag of squigs). Just because someone cannot envision how to expand a model range doesn't mean someone more talented cannot. I don't care for the approach so far that GW has taken for this release and would have enjoyed something that better suited how I like my GSG army to look.
I have no clue what you are implying by lack of self-esteem and loss. Such comments again reflect your overly hostile tone and why I tried to graciously disengage from the conversation with you. I stand by my points, but do not wish to further waste my time having any more of a discussion with someone so hate filled and angry. You shall be forever known to me as the first person in 17 years on this site that I have had to add to my ignore list.
For anyone who's complaining about Wolf Riders being put in the Gloomspite Gitz book:
Would you prefer if they just changed the title to "and Goblins" since all the Orcs are in another book? Because that's basically where we're at: the old Orcs and Goblins army, minus the Orcs.
And a single unit does NOT beg for it's own book.
Agreed, a single unit should not have its own book (though it could be argued GW has done such this year with the Incarnate). My position is that I would have preferred GW spent their limited resources on expanding the existing factions (GSG & spiderfangs). As I wrote above, just because we cannot come-up with new ideas for an existing faction doesn't mean others cannot do it. As an example, a few of the Underworlds warbands have "previewed" cool ideas that could expand existing factions. The same preview prompting this discussion showed at least two new possible units for GSG with minimal effort. If you are in the camp of anything new is good, that is a totally valid opinion.
At this point, it is what it is, so not reason to keep dragging on the discussion. Much appreciation for the sharing of opinions on it and here is to an awesome run of releases in 2023.
Have we seen any word on the individual releases from the Slaves to Darkness army set?
I did a search but came up with nothing.
I'm assuming $60 for Theridons, & $60 for 5 Chosen. But is the Daemon Prince going to create a new price brakcet around $75, or be at the $65 of Bobby G?
From the start Gutrippaz should have been ~150 pts with their shields giving a flat -1 to hit them all the time. I'd have even given 10+ sized units an Idoneth-esque 'have to shoot me if I'm closest' ability.
Looks suitably silly and fun. They're going to be the first Underworlds warband I've purchased in about 2 seasons, I think.
Oh dam, that is potent. Giving fight-on-death at the start of the combat phase can be a VERY powerful buff for a GSG player who exploits it correctly. And is still pretty dam nice even in a less than ideal situation.
[Edit] OK, I see it now... puffanatics, three units of snufflers, spiker, loonboss, looncourt... all buffing a unit of stabbas. 5 attacks each, rr wounds of 1, deal a MW on wounds of 6, and fight when they die in the combat phase! It's a bunch of hoops but it makes them perform as well as... plague monks do... just for showing up with a priest at their back...
From the start Gutrippaz should have been ~150 pts with their shields giving a flat -1 to hit them all the time. I'd have even given 10+ sized units an Idoneth-esque 'have to shoot me if I'm closest' ability.
Unfortunately, Poison has always been one of those things that they overcost due to what it can potentially do and refuse to adjust it despite on the board performance not bearing out their conclusion. Pretty much everything in the subfaction could do with a 10-30 point(depending on unit) decrease across the board to start.
GW wrote:This commemorative miniature will be available exclusively at Warhammer stores from Boxing Day* until Sunday the 8th of January 2023. You’ll be able to order it online between Saturday the 7th of January and Sunday the 15th of January, so dip your finger in blood – er, cranberry sauce – and circle your calendar.
*For those not in the UK, Boxing Day is the 26th December
I’ve wanted to go a throne conversion ever since that ghoul king artwork. Thus will be cheaper than buying the craven king but I’m not loving the idea that his cape is going to be attached to the throne tho
It's exclusive but will be orderable from the GW store. It's a bit of a shame because its awesome and Flehseaters freaking need every model they can get.
That said if its the direction GW takes artistically with their range in the future I think it will be awesome. Flesheaters have such a huge gap between their models and their lore so seeing a model like this is just what they need a whole lost more of.
Tim the Biovore wrote: Tactical throne? Drags that massive stone chair across the battlefield with him?
Must think his valiant steed has gone lame
Nah, it’s part of the delusion. He thinks it’s a magical artefact that just appears when he wants to sit down and doesn’t notice that he’s getting some really solid thigh and hamstrings workouts in.
The recent novel tie in vampire is 27€. Bit skinny himself but has a big old tactical tree stump. Radukar has the bulk but no tactical scenery, for 31.50€. I think this kind of commemorative character box tops out at 34€ currently.
At a guess I'd say it's going to be 34€ because it's another commemorative series model. However that guess is mostly based on GW being GW. It should be noted that this year's Warhammer+ models were cheaper than last year's, so we can't rule out that this model is not going to use the top price bracket for its kind.
This has come from TGA, so probably utter bs. But who knows, could be partially right:
>January
S2D full release
Beast of Chaos:
New Beastlord
No other new models
Some resin kits may get range rotated (not 100%)
General's Handbook with big (bone?) Spider
>February
Gloomspite Gitz:
Snarlfang Riders
Gitmob hero
Snarlfang Chariot with shaman option
Sylvaneth-size release
Completely reworked Bad Moon: constant passive effect with chance to wane/wax depending on amount of friendly losses
>March
Seraphon:
New "big dino" with magic structure on top
Kroxigors
Razordon/Salamander Pack dual kit (2 bigger lizards)
Saurus Guard with leader options
More Azyr looking Saurus Sunblood/Eternity Warden?
>April
Blades of Khorne vs Hedonites box (again)
New single Hedonite foot hero
New single Khorne foot hero (named?)
>May
Flesh-eater Courts:
"Court wizard" shaman
New "mid-size" ghouls (Melee/Ranged)
Ossiarch Bonereapers:
New Mortisan (manipulates enemy units)
>June
Cities of Sigmar (before 40k 10th edition):
"Azyrite" = new units, not subfaction (calling them this for simplicity/lack of details)
Azyrite Guard (Halberd/Small weapon (mace, sword, axe) options)
Azyrite Gunners ("Musketeers", special option for hand cannon with shield (bigger base like Skitarii))
Azyrite Knights (Regular Knight/Outrider dual kit)
Azyrite Elite (think new Greatswords/Mace, Sword, Hammer options, big armour)
Azyrite Ogors (Chunky armour, big halberd + option for pistol for leader)
Azyrite General (Sculpted base, mix of Elite, Gunner and Guard aesthetics but fancier)
Azyrite Mage (One mini, many options)
Azyrite Priest (Big Fantasy Warrior Priest aesthetic, think that big Dawnbringer picture from core book)
Flagellants (More grimdark, less flamehead/not-carried chains)
Azyrite Artillery (New spin on Helblaster/Helstorm + regular cannon. One duardin crew member)
Azyrite Walker (Vaguely similar to Steam Tank/Gyrocopter. Think 40k Sentinel but more Steampunk + AoS)
Azyrite General on big beast (Centerpiece, option for named hero)
All current human kits cut except for Steam Tank
All Wanderers cut
Duardin/non-human Ironweld fine
Darkling Covens cut back (no basic infantry) + combined with Shadowblades (Shadow Warriors cut)
Privateers/Order Serpentis combined and slightly trimmed (no chariot)
Big Dawnbringer Crusade Path to Glory section in BT >August
Kharadron Overlords:
New foot hero (record keeper/accountant looking)
>September
Soulblight Gravelords:
New Necromancer
New Grave Guard/Skeleton crossbows dual kit
A lot of that sounds pretty sensible and practical.
Kind of surprising GW would pull back on the old Dark Elf army stuff - if I were them I'd just throw together some lore, throw out a battletome and a few new leader models and BOOM new army and faction in the game.
Ossiarchs only getting a new leader is, I mean its great and all but its not the archers nor monsters I hope for
Overread wrote: Kind of surprising GW would pull back on the old Dark Elf army stuff - if I were them I'd just throw together some lore, throw out a battletome and a few new leader models and BOOM new army and faction in the game.
GW still haven't done anything with Malekith - the Dark Elves could all go work for him again.
Overread wrote: Kind of surprising GW would pull back on the old Dark Elf army stuff - if I were them I'd just throw together some lore, throw out a battletome and a few new leader models and BOOM new army and faction in the game.
GW still haven't done anything with Malekith - the Dark Elves could all go work for him again.
At the same time they already set out that Malekith's army is more twisted toward dragons for the newly formed ones; whilst the regulars are all shadow aelves which might well have mist-effect all over them.
Right now he's almost like Cathay and Nippon - major in the story and yet totally absent from the table. It is surprising GW haven't brought them out; but at the same time they've a LOT of armies that need attention now and already have customers.
lord_blackfang wrote: Yep this list is outright delusional, that's almost as much stuff as AoS has gotten in all of its existance crammed into 6 months.
The list might well be delusional, but in volume it is nowhere near 25% of what has been released for AOS since it started.
Heck, I don't think this list would even match SCE releases since AOS began.
lord_blackfang wrote: Yep this list is outright delusional, that's almost as much stuff as AoS has gotten in all of its existance crammed into 6 months.
The list might well be delusional, but in volume it is nowhere near 25% of what has been released for AOS since it started.
Heck, I don't think this list would even match SCE releases since AOS began.
Excluding books and various starter sets, I count 62 entries on GW's website.
lord_blackfang wrote: Yep this list is outright delusional, that's almost as much stuff as AoS has gotten in all of its existance crammed into 6 months.
In the first six months of 2021 Lumineth got 11 new kits, Slaanesh got 8 new kits, and Soulblight got 11 new kits not counting cursed City. They also released Gardus, the Slaanesh twins, Be'lakor, a new Nighthaunt hero, Kroak, the Van Dents and some endless spells for DoK. In that time period there were 4 battletomes and three campaign books. That's 37 kits and 7 books.
This list has 33 kits in 9 months so a release schedule similar to this literally happened last year.
That said the most reliable AoS source of rumours said this was shrewd guesswork. That same individual has said that we are getting more than one kit for FEC and GW themselves have listed the many books that are coming out next year. They've also confirmed Cities of Sigmar for 2023 and publicly said it's one of their biggest releases for AoS ever.
The real question marks are just the Seraphon release and the Soulblight release. There are two unsolved rumour engines that are definitely Seraphon so they could well be in line for more than the usual single model. As for Soulblight, I just feel it's unlikely that GW will give them a ranged option.
lord_blackfang wrote: Yep this list is outright delusional, that's almost as much stuff as AoS has gotten in all of its existance crammed into 6 months.
The list might well be delusional, but in volume it is nowhere near 25% of what has been released for AOS since it started.
Heck, I don't think this list would even match SCE releases since AOS began.
Excluding books and various starter sets, I count 62 entries on GW's website.
I count roughly 36 entries in this wishlist.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. I did a quick count and if you remove dual builds, bundles and books there are still about 185 kits in the order section alone.
lord_blackfang wrote: Yep this list is outright delusional, that's almost as much stuff as AoS has gotten in all of its existance crammed into 6 months.
The list might well be delusional, but in volume it is nowhere near 25% of what has been released for AOS since it started.
Heck, I don't think this list would even match SCE releases since AOS began.
Excluding books and various starter sets, I count 62 entries on GW's website.
I count roughly 36 entries in this wishlist.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. I did a quick count and if you remove dual builds, bundles and books there are still about 185 kits in the order section alone.
He's looking at the Stormcast faction alone, which being a totally new army is all 100% new releases. Not sure if he removed duel kits or not from that count, which would bring it down a bit if not. However it still shows that GW have released WAY more than just 40 odd new kits for AoS since its launch and Stormcast came out pretty thick and fast.
So in other news, just finished the Drekki Flynt novel and a few chapters dealing with Grotbag Scuttlers directly went into details that could be describing future units. COULD be, this is very circumstantial and definitely needs to be taken with a reasonably large degree of salt.
"Kaptin Blackheart" is a grot pirate admiral with definite 'faction lead named character' vibes. His ship, on the other hand, seems far too large to be a miniature (it is pulled by two Maw Crushas which roost below decks, to give an idea). However it had some interesting elements that could just be the author or could be something more:
-Inflated gas-squig used for lift
-Catapults firing squigs and/or bundles of snotlings. Very much still alive in both cases.
-A wide range of scrappy aethetic construction and weapons. A lot of wood, a lot of arrows, a lot of guns.
There was, and gosh I hope this ends up as a mini one day, a flying machine which worked by a central spine of grot 'rowers' working an integral pump mechanism that flaps gigantic wings on the ships' sides.
Units of doom-diver-esque elite grots who fly in, land, and pull swords rather than the decidedly more... terminal tactics of actual doom divers. Definitely had 'flying infantry kit' vibes.
Another 'elite' unit involving large guns, maybe a jezzail sort of thing? Was hard to tell from the brief description.
Generic grotbag skyships had too much variety to all be miniatures, so it is impossible to say which could be.
That rumor list is a great combo of wishlist (Seraphon stuff is too good to be true!), educated guess(Everyone knows the Bad Moon mechanics are changing), boring( Khorne v. Slaanesh boxed set, with Heroes on foot? groan) and other stuff we already know, along with some jarring omissions, like the fate of remaining High Elf kits where other kits are cut/trimmed.
Would be nice if its true, but I'll remain skeptical until we get visual confirmation.
The Cities of Sigmar/'Azyrite' stuff is a big flag for me.
The last Dawnbringer crusade article conflated Dawnbringers and CoS, and even if they aren't planning a merger, doing two mostly normal human factions within a [year+?] time frame seems very unlikely. And the Dawnbringers are a bit further off then June, based on how they've described showing off the releases and updates as like the 40k Sisters process (which was something like 18+ months, and, iirc, had a lot more to show off at '6 months to release' than a few digital bits and weapons).
Wasn't a big flag for me, since it seems to be making it clear that the "Azyrite" notes are more to distinguish them as humans with an Azyrite flair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: That rumor list is a great combo of wishlist (Seraphon stuff is too good to be true!), educated guess(Everyone knows the Bad Moon mechanics are changing), boring( Khorne v. Slaanesh boxed set, with Heroes on foot? groan) and other stuff we already know, along with some jarring omissions, like the fate of remaining High Elf kits where other kits are cut/trimmed.
Would be nice if its true, but I'll remain skeptical until we get visual confirmation.
If Wanderers and Shadow Warriors are cut, that leaves just Phoenix Guard and Phoenixes as High Elf stuff.
Meh they seem made up or lacking important context to me. Either way it paints a picture I feel is inaccurate. No major flaws but a lot of little things, particularly there just isn't anything really crazy in there. The sort of 'no way that's true!' thing that GW inevitability pulls on us several times a year (in a good way).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Not sure if another diorama miniature is what people want.
Maybe expanding the Ossiach range to have not a single model but entire units of this guy would be a good start.
I still want an Ossiarch dragon!
But yeah I was more using my example as a way to show how a simple statment of products can sound boring and dry because its without context of the model and that when you bring in details of what the model is the hype builds up.
And yes I want legions of archers, heck I'd like to seee the points costs for Ossiarchs come down so that they can field more things and then expand their range with a nice second wave. I feel like they are kind of where Lumieth were in that they've a solid core but they need more to attract a wider audience.
GW wrote:This commemorative miniature will be available exclusively at Warhammer stores from Boxing Day* until Sunday the 8th of January 2023. You’ll be able to order it online between Saturday the 7th of January and Sunday the 15th of January, so dip your finger in blood – er, cranberry sauce – and circle your calendar.
*For those not in the UK, Boxing Day is the 26th December
Honestly, I thought the model was a Kruleboy or gobo at first. He's kinda disapointing after the amazinging looking Abhorrant Archregent.
Personally I think he's great and a design style that I hope we see Flesheaters following more and more of. Right now they've got the biggest disconnect from their lore. Their models just don't really speak of an army of insane ghouls who think they are people; let alone knights in armour or such.
Meanwhile this king clearly looks like he's thinking of himself as a king, sitting, wearing clothes and acting like a king. Plus its not the Nurgle style of happy insanity, but a more brutal kind which fits the Flesheaters perfectly. They aren't happy in their delusion, they are vicious and insane.
Its kind of sad how GW has missed the mark on them with any of the newer models they released for the FEC. Not that I don't love the Archregent, but it doesn't scream "I am a king."
And tell me why did the Grymwatch just look like regular crypt ghouls? Underworlds was a chance to make really unique models, and instead, it was the gloomspite gitz who got a knightly court, complete with a herald and patchwork armor.
GaroRobe wrote: Its kind of sad how GW has missed the mark on them with any of the newer models they released for the FEC. Not that I don't love the Archregent, but it doesn't scream "I am a king."
And tell me why did the Grymwatch just look like regular crypt ghouls? Underworlds was a chance to make really unique models, and instead, it was the gloomspite gitz who got a knightly court, complete with a herald and patchwork armor.
Because it's all a delusion. They're not actually draping themselves in rusted and ancient finery and jewels, they see scraps of flesh and bones as something else. To everyone that aren't FEC, they just see Ghouls draped in the remnants of their victims. It's not even really a cruel mockery of actual courtly appearance. Read the interchanging POVs in Ghoulslayer, their actions don't even match up with what they think they're doing at that moment. There's a moment in the book where the "king" thinks he backhands someone and then wonders why the man is dead, covered in blood and slashes.
GaroRobe wrote: Its kind of sad how GW has missed the mark on them with any of the newer models they released for the FEC. Not that I don't love the Archregent, but it doesn't scream "I am a king."
And tell me why did the Grymwatch just look like regular crypt ghouls? Underworlds was a chance to make really unique models, and instead, it was the gloomspite gitz who got a knightly court, complete with a herald and patchwork armor.
Because it's all a delusion. They're not actually draping themselves in rusted and ancient finery and jewels, they see scraps of flesh and bones as something else. To everyone that aren't FEC, they just see Ghouls draped in the remnants of their victims. It's not even really a cruel mockery of actual courtly appearance. Read the interchanging POVs in Ghoulslayer, their actions don't even match up with what they think they're doing at that moment.
Yeah Ghoulslayer does a fantastic job of showing how insane they are. I just feel like model wise they need some visual guides to how they think they are in how they dress and appear, just enough that you can see a bit of their delusion in the model. From those that are totally feral in appearance to those draping themselves with a courtly garb which just happens to be a decaying skin of something they killed. In my view GW needs to get it just right and balance the fully feral with the slightly more "regal feral".
Also GW REALLY needs to give us the bone dragons that feature in Ghoulslayer.
I'm just wondering why they're still painting them that dreadful green. Didn't GW do a red and white studio army for their first or second battletome? Whatever happened to that?
There are four major subfactions, the green is one of them while the pale flesh white is another. Then there's a burnt (literally) sunburn-orange, and a bluish grey.
I like this new mini, it is nice to have a regular GK available outside the big box and he looks great to magnetize on top of their terrain piece.
Thanks. Now that you mention it I think I ever so dimly remember Flesheater Courts getting named subfactions at some point. Still, it's a shame what they have for poster boys. I've disliked that color scheme even back in Fantasy and was happy to see something else feature so heavily in the earlier battletome.
Geifer wrote: Thanks. Now that you mention it I think I ever so dimly remember Flesheater Courts getting named subfactions at some point. Still, it's a shame what they have for poster boys. I've disliked that color scheme even back in Fantasy and was happy to see something else feature so heavily in the earlier battletome.
FEC had nice subfaction system in AOC in that if you didn't take named subfaction you had other rule(customizable at that) instead.
Gave reason to not go for named subfactions. Wish they had went that route rather than remove all reasons to NOT take subfaction free bonuses.
I think the problem is that GW marketing and management kind of wishes that every other army's subfactions would take off with popularity like the Space Marine subfactions did. Ergo generating enough sales and free marketing that they'd be armies in their own right.
In reality they either end up themed so that players playing the army a certain way always take a certain themed subfaction (one does close combat, one does ranged, one does tanking etc....); or they have one that's just outright better than the rest and everyone goes with that.
In the end its a few lines of themed rules and a few adjustments here and there. The biggest variations are the few that have specific model restrictions for what you can take.
In the end I do agree, GW doesn't really know what to do with them. If they make them weak people don't care about them and if they make them strong they tend to be broken (because its GW balance); and eveyone goes for the same one.
I "almost" think its an idea we coudl do without, but some armies run them really in a fun way - eg Skaven - so there's value in them.
I think perhaps in bigger armies like Skaven where they can vary unit restrictions they work well as flavour and theme; whilst in most other armies there just isn't the model count to really do that.
Well january pretty much had to be if they don't want very long & short gaps between 2 books. If you were faking rumours this would be good odds
Rumours regarding 9w foot heroes being thing so armies without those might struggle with bt's(especially if no battletome bt's style becomes more popular)
Christ that's a lot of rules they've written to basically re-do the old Independent Character and retinue rules, but in a way that is more clunky and more wordy than ever thought possible.
Out of curiosity, is the character protection rule a seasonal rule strictly to spice things up for the duration or has shooting in the game become so potent that it creates issues for characters and this is a fix that may last beyond the season or is a trial for 4th ed? Any opinions on that?
Geifer wrote: Out of curiosity, is the character protection rule a seasonal rule strictly to spice things up for the duration or has shooting in the game become so potent that it creates issues for characters and this is a fix that may last beyond the season or is a trial for 4th ed? Any opinions on that?
Well bit of both.
Whether that shows on 4th remains to be seen.
What I will be interested is might the fight in 2 ranks be incorporated to infantry rule in this GHB. Or is stuff like Bladegheist Revenants going to be worse again.
In my games it's less the durability in most games that been issue and more of they not having all that much punch in melee so unless it's wizard hero better be owner of good buff to sit at back. This at least gives them bit role in combat as well and not just sit at back behind as many friends as possible(not exactly heroic...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EldarExarch wrote: What a fun and interesting/different mechanic for IDK heroes...
oh wait
Like soulrender, thrallmaster, lotann and tidecaster?
You are like what an interesting mechanic galletian veterans was for varanguard, chaos knights, blood knights etc...
EldarExarch wrote: What a fun and interesting/different mechanic for IDK heroes...
oh wait
Do you mean cause of companions? If so, then it's been confirmed by a WarCom fb comment (not 100% believable, granted) that for the sake of GCs companions do not count as mounts.
IDK allegiance makes it so enemies can only shoot the closest target, so this change will do nothing for them most of the time.
Anyways, I am happy with a rules update since I am not a fan of the current season's rules, but I am disappointed by the precedent it sets of a new GHB every 6 months. I'll have to see the quality of the update to really judge though.
NinthMusketeer wrote: IDK allegiance makes it so enemies can only shoot the closest target, so this change will do nothing for them most of the time.
Step 1: Put Galletian Champion IDK hero in front of Battleline unit.
Step 2: IDK hero cannot be targeted because it is within 1" of a friendly Battleline hero as a Galletian Champion. Battleline unit cannot be targeted because it is not the closest unit.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit
tneva82 wrote: What I will be interested is might the fight in 2 ranks be incorporated to infantry rule in this GHB. Or is stuff like Bladegheist Revenants going to be worse again.
Yeah, I skimmed over the article looking mainly for word about that rule making the transition to the next GHB.
NinthMusketeer wrote: IDK allegiance makes it so enemies can only shoot the closest target, so this change will do nothing for them most of the time.
Step 1: Put Galletian Champion IDK hero in front of Battleline unit.
Step 2: IDK hero cannot be targeted because it is within 1" of a friendly Battleline hero as a Galletian Champion. Battleline unit cannot be targeted because it is not the closest unit.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit
The IDK states you have to shoot the closest eligible target. The character can't be a target because of GC rule, so accompanying battleline is the only eligible target. No real confusion there.
NinthMusketeer wrote: IDK allegiance makes it so enemies can only shoot the closest target, so this change will do nothing for them most of the time.
Step 1: Put Galletian Champion IDK hero in front of Battleline unit.
Step 2: IDK hero cannot be targeted because it is within 1" of a friendly Battleline hero as a Galletian Champion. Battleline unit cannot be targeted because it is not the closest unit.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit
The IDK states you have to shoot the closest eligible target. The character can't be a target because of GC rule, so accompanying battleline is the only eligible target. No real confusion there.
To be fair, GW had to learn that wording the hard way. A space marine subfaction rule or strat created that exact situation.
Shadow Walker wrote: I like him except the chin part of his mask (which can be easily removed or maybe there are two masks in the kit to choose from?).
Agreed. I was looking at my recently purchased Gloomspite kits and searching for a more impressive hat/head to give him.
Shadow Walker wrote: I like him except the chin part of his mask (which can be easily removed or maybe there are two masks in the kit to choose from?).
Agreed. I was looking at my recently purchased Gloomspite kits and searching for a more impressive hat/head to give him.
Same here, chin bit is weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: Also, this model and the new Ghoul King are glaring omissions from that rumor list.
GK I give a pass on because it isn't a normal release. But a new GSG hero is pretty big to miss, and there's no way that guy could be confused with Gitmob to be the rumored 'Gotmob Hero'.
Love the chin, love the fact GW seems to be rediscovering the silly flavour of goblins that was largely absent from the range for years after the early plastic kits replaced the old metals.
There's also a touch of Rackham's whimsy in those designs that I like.
He's okay but a strictly average sculpt in the context of the faction. You are for sure better off buying the new Underworlds gang for Gitz hero proxies.
lord_blackfang wrote: He's okay but a strictly average sculpt in the context of the faction. You are for sure better off buying the new Underworlds gang for Gitz hero proxies.
He's a goblin. It's not a question of being poor, average or high sculpt - more one of being in line with other goblin heroes. Underworld gangs aren't especially more detailed.
The advice does stand when talking about difference in prices when it will be released, sure, but the level of details of the sculpt isn't the issue here. After all, we know since a long time ago it has absolutely nothing to do with how GW puts prices on what they sell.
I do like its simplicity, makes me remember old monobloc goblins that are so easy to paint. A blessing given the number of these lil green critters you need in your army. It's just a shame he's clearly too big to be put on a 20mm square base, otherwise I would have thought about taking him for my Warhammer Battle V8 army.
Not strictly the level of details, no, just generally not looking like an interesting model. I don't think this one stands apart in any way, like why would I get him in particular over some other sculpt (apart from maybe some good rules being locked to him). He does the job and nothing more.
Compare with the recent Nighthaunt heroes where one has a stockade and one has a book and one has a boat, they kinda tell a story and this guy is just some dude.
lord_blackfang wrote: Not strictly the level of details, no, just generally not looking like an interesting model. I don't think this one stands apart in any way, like why would I get him in particular over some other sculpt (apart from maybe some good rules being locked to him). He does the job and nothing more.
Compare with the recent Nighthaunt heroes where one has a stockade and one has a book and one has a boat, they kinda tell a story and this guy is just some dude.
Just like the Stormcast, there are too many of them and they are all over the top in their own specific way so that they all start to flow together and become indestinct. Couldn't pick that one from a Grotspittle Gitstabber or whatever they're call this week
lord_blackfang wrote: Not strictly the level of details, no, just generally not looking like an interesting model. I don't think this one stands apart in any way, like why would I get him in particular over some other sculpt (apart from maybe some good rules being locked to him). He does the job and nothing more.
Compare with the recent Nighthaunt heroes where one has a stockade and one has a book and one has a boat, they kinda tell a story and this guy is just some dude.
Just like the Stormcast, there are too many of them and they are all over the top in their own specific way so that they all start to flow together and become indestinct. Couldn't pick that one from a Grotspittle Gitstabber or whatever they're call this week
For a moment I actually thought it was a redone Skarsnik (as the Gobbo in the Iron Mask), until I realized he had a shepherd's crook rather than a spear. Mostly because of the squig on the base.
Seems like a lot of big lizard-person things, a random airship??? and more chaosy and dark-elfish stuff from the silhouettes, as well as half a dozen battletomes, but none for destruction.
As for Warcry and Underworlds: Vampires? Shadow Elves? Who even knows!
Seems like a lot of big lizard-person things, a random airship??? and more chaosy and dark-elfish stuff from the silhouettes, as well as half a dozen battletomes, but none for destruction.
Well...year starts with slaves to darkness and then last destruction book missing(shown in video)
You expecting aos3 books get 2nd version already???
Beside gloomspite all destruction has got book...and no new factions until old ones get aos3 book tyvm.
Definitely a new Slaan a la Kroak, the CAD files for palanquin make that a no brainer. The Saurus doesn't have a tactical rock so my fingers are crossed that it's an update of the rank and file unit. Big feathered beastie ideally the new Cold Ones, I like the idea of a more "true" raptor design for the dinosaur faction to separate them from the Dark Elves. Very exciting stuff.
Danny76 wrote: I was gonna say watching the video I thought immediately it was just new Saurus Cav
Saurus Cavalry may easily get a boost in size and oomph and fit a slot more like 'superheavy' cavalry, like the drakoth-riding stormcast, bloodcrusher and so on. That would also open up another slot for skinks on more slender, smaller lizards as light cavalry.
straken619 wrote: I hope the last 2 are khorne mortal and vampire from warcry bloodhunt. Although i would prefer if it was khorne and FEC in the box.
I think a Khorne themed warband is to be expected. There's already a Nurgle themed warband and a Tzeentch themed one. I'm guessing Khorne is next and then Slaanesh. One chaos god affiliated warband each would make sense, and the last two other warbands would hypothetically be one each for undead and destruction. This would make one new warband for each overall allegiance also.
Finally new Saurus and cavalry unit. Looks like a Skink riding something to me--the feet are standing on top and they look like skink legs not saurus.
The saurus knights are a particularly terrible kit. Probably the worst in the range, and that includes several failcast kits, so that's saying something.
Maybe the last thing in that trailer was a new Fish Elf? They could do with their second wave (no pun intended).
Most if not all of their blades are serrated. The Lumineth ones are usually straight. And SoK don't have that many clothes. So the model doesn't really fit either faction.
Some frustrating padding of the video run time with the focus on StD stuff that's already released. "Check out the Centaurion Marshall thats been out for better part of the year! And Be'lakor! And Archaon! "
Most if not all of their blades are serrated. The Lumineth ones are usually straight. And SoK don't have that many clothes. So the model doesn't really fit either faction.
It could always be Privateers...the faction that does beasthunting and breaking.
Looks like the Battlescroll updates for Jan 2023 (Galletian Champions) have leaked online. Could be a fake for all I know, but the group I am in is treating it like the real deal.
Lumineth got to enjoy allies beyond idoneth for what? 3 months? 4?
Hope people didn't buy others as allies for lrl.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Excited to see AoS will be getting 6 new models in the span of 6 months.
I love it how you keep proving you can't even count. At least 11 new kits for sale in video. Nevermind actual models.
(not to mention gw has funny habit of not showing everything at once so if you think this is all...well i have one word describing how i feel about you. Pity.
I think the joke there was that for the most part new codex/battletome releases have generally been limited to a single new hero model per book, with only a handful receiving anything more than that.
chaos0xomega wrote: I think the joke there was that for the most part new codex/battletome releases have generally been limited to a single new hero model per book, with only a handful receiving anything more than that.
Which is pretty normal.
Whilst we'd all love to see multiple factions getting big chunky additions, we have to be realistic that GW has a finite level of investment and production and that is split over multiple games. I'd love to see Skaven get a full line update; Dwarves to get a big release; Daughters of Khaine, Flesheaters and Ossiarchs to double or triple in kits. But not every army can stand up and take centre stage each month. Some get big additions in one go, some get drip fed.
chaos0xomega wrote: I think the joke there was that for the most part new codex/battletome releases have generally been limited to a single new hero model per book, with only a handful receiving anything more than that.
Which is pretty normal. Whilst we'd all love to see multiple factions getting big chunky additions, we have to be realistic that GW has a finite level of investment and production and that is split over multiple games. I'd love to see Skaven get a full line update; Dwarves to get a big release; Daughters of Khaine, Flesheaters and Ossiarchs to double or triple in kits. But not every army can stand up and take centre stage each month. Some get big additions in one go, some get drip fed.
Bro they can tool 6 new sprues of terrain for a throwaway boxed game a couple of times each year, don't tell me it isn't realistic for FEC to get one plastic unit in 15 years.
Looks like a Lizardmen Saurus dude, the first shot looked like a Slann Palanquin, and then another one looked like one Lizard mounted on another Lizard. Not sure what the one after that was and whether it was another Lizard or something else.
chaos0xomega wrote: I think the joke there was that for the most part new codex/battletome releases have generally been limited to a single new hero model per book, with only a handful receiving anything more than that.
Which is pretty normal.
Whilst we'd all love to see multiple factions getting big chunky additions, we have to be realistic that GW has a finite level of investment and production and that is split over multiple games. I'd love to see Skaven get a full line update; Dwarves to get a big release; Daughters of Khaine, Flesheaters and Ossiarchs to double or triple in kits. But not every army can stand up and take centre stage each month. Some get big additions in one go, some get drip fed.
Bro they can tool 6 new sprues of terrain for a throwaway boxed game a couple of times each year, don't tell me it isn't realistic for FEC to get one plastic unit in 15 years.
Hey I'm still waiting on a plastic duel kit for Biovores and Pyrovores for Tyranids and a lictor/deathleaper one.
I'm 100% not saying that Gw works perfectly logically with what we want/need/desire - just that they do have some limits. I mean heck AoS has had loads of new models. Soulblight got a huge update; Nighthaunt, Stormcast, Luminieth are all chunky releases (ok Stormcast are double chunky)
Tim the Biovore wrote: Definitely a new Slaan a la Kroak, the CAD files for palanquin make that a no brainer. The Saurus doesn't have a tactical rock so my fingers are crossed that it's an update of the rank and file unit. Big feathered beastie ideally the new Cold Ones, I like the idea of a more "true" raptor design for the dinosaur faction to separate them from the Dark Elves. Very exciting stuff.
Science already ruined Jurassic Park. Do we really need it to ruin Warhammer as well?
chaos0xomega wrote: I think the joke there was that for the most part new codex/battletome releases have generally been limited to a single new hero model per book, with only a handful receiving anything more than that.
Which is pretty normal.
Whilst we'd all love to see multiple factions getting big chunky additions, we have to be realistic that GW has a finite level of investment and production and that is split over multiple games. I'd love to see Skaven get a full line update; Dwarves to get a big release; Daughters of Khaine, Flesheaters and Ossiarchs to double or triple in kits. But not every army can stand up and take centre stage each month. Some get big additions in one go, some get drip fed.
Bro they can tool 6 new sprues of terrain for a throwaway boxed game a couple of times each year, don't tell me it isn't realistic for FEC to get one plastic unit in 15 years.
That's a question of priorities rather than production capacity. GW could have made plastic Sisters of Battle any time in the last twenty years, but we all know how that went. Flesheater Courts are kind of the same. They got the Archregent for one of their tomes, passing them over for a bigger range update that time around. Now they lucked out on the FOMO lottery and get a rather nice but super time limited Ghoul King, because after the King on dragon and the King +1 on foot that's what the faction needed, right? But luckily the model is limited so people don't have to worry about drowning in Ghoul Kings like they're Primaris Lieutenants. Another stroke of luck right there.
At the same time GW can do new Cadians, World Eaters, Slaves to Darkness, Squats, and whatever else I may have missed from the last three months. It's not production capacity. It's that whoever makes the decisions at GW consistently refuses to make a range update happen for this particular army.
Bro they can tool 6 new sprues of terrain for a throwaway boxed game a couple of times each year, don't tell me it isn't realistic for FEC to get one plastic unit in 15 years.
Well, the new Ghoul King is new so since the launch of AoS we've had 2 new unit kits if we ignore both Endless Spells and the terrain. We also technically got the Underworlds kit which I use as alternatives to ghoul leaders.
What I am more curious is to see if FEC is part of the next two Death releases, which would mean we only get 1 new/updated kit, or if FEC get a later release which might be bigger.
At the same time GW can do new Cadians, World Eaters, Slaves to Darkness, Squats, and whatever else I may have missed from the last three months. It's not production capacity. It's that whoever makes the decisions at GW consistently refuses to make a range update happen for this particular army.
My guess is that the playerbase of that army isn't that big to begin with which might be why GW isn't putting priority into it. However, we might be surprised later down the line and get a nice range update or at least an addition. Depends entirely on what GW projects what is best for the line regardless of whether we like ir not.
Personally I'd love to get a proper Varghulf plastic kit and maybe a ghoul size above the Crypt Flayers. Like a Ghoul Troll or something.
The problem is when an army isn't selling well its hard for GW to justify investing more money into that army and potentially making less profit for that investment; when they can invest in an army (or game) that's already selling really well and has a proven record and will likely recoup even more profit from that same investment.
Of course if GW follows those numbers perfectly, they'll only ever invest in Space Marines and extreme following of that mantra avoids the fact that investment in armies, esp serious investment, often yields increased popularity and thus increased return on investment.
This is before we even consider if there's design staff in-house who work well with a particular faction and their design aesthetics and all. I'm sure when an army is a "pet" of a key staffer it likely gets more attention outside of its financial aspects. Meanwhile armies that might not have a GW local fan or one to make their case, might well get overlooked.
The extremes - eg Sisters of Battle - are clearly not healthy; but it also shows how proper investment and marketing (keeping in mind a lot of GW's marketing is through their own established channels with set staff and thus its all a fixed constant steady cost) can take an army from nothing to high seller.
lord_blackfang wrote: Bro they can tool 6 new sprues of terrain for a throwaway boxed game a couple of times each year, don't tell me it isn't realistic for FEC to get one plastic unit in 15 years.
Aren't the terrain sprues outsourced? Or is GW making them in house these days?
Some are outsourced, some are produced in Nottingham. Seems to depend on the kit, and I think more recently most of the new terrain releases have been Nottingham-made.
-First is new slann
- New saurus or temple guard.
-skink in a new monster ( maybe coldone) but it has the metal feathers from some rumor enginers..
The next 2 i was thinking in malerion aelves, because one of them looks like a dark eldar. But maybe are 2 new characters from khorne and slaanesh in the rumoured box. Or maybe are the leaders for khorne and slaanesh warcry bands
chaos0xomega wrote: Some are outsourced, some are produced in Nottingham. Seems to depend on the kit, and I think more recently most of the new terrain releases have been Nottingham-made.
Considering how messy China has been with shipping things and the like it wouldn't surprise me if GW were doing more terrain in-house and outsourcing less of it just to cut down on shipping issues. Considering that they can do terrain inhouse anyway. Things like card stock, books and such almost all have to come from overseas as
Lord Damocles wrote: Maybe the slinks are going to ride on the spitting dinosaur from Jurassic Park.
The 'metal feathers' might just be a developing symptom of GW having lost the ability to sculpt fur and hair. Now frills have gone too.
It'll be velociraptors because raptors are cooler, but they'll emulate dilophosaurus with a metal crest imbued with the magic of the Old Ones to allow the raptors to spit plasma bolts. Best of both worlds and totally in tone with AoS.
nels1031 wrote: Its most likely stylized armor though, right?
Maybe the beast has the real thing, bone frills or whatever, and the rider has them as a motiv for his headgear, back banner or sth. made out of metal.
Skinks would be riding Horned Ones. But dam do lizzy cav need new sculpts, anything would be better than the things they have now.
At any rate this list only covers armies that don't have 3rd ed books yet, it isn't particularly revealing beyond letting us know which quarter they will be in and that they will all be done by Q3 2023. Not counting SGL here, since they are very much a 3rd-ed book in a 2nd-ed cover.
Great news to se lizardmen and goblins get some love, and possibly something like dark elf corsairs. Together with "slaves to darkness" there is a clear trend they go back to nostalgia rather than try to drop brand new amies no one can relate to.
Also, no stormcasts in the teaser.
Good, in my oppinion.
Fayric wrote: Great news to se lizardmen and goblins get some love, and possibly something like dark elf corsairs. Together with "slaves to darkness" there is a clear trend they go back to nostalgia rather than try to drop brand new amies no one can relate to.
Also, no stormcasts in the teaser.
Good, in my oppinion.
The "trend" seems to come more from the fact that most of the new armies already got their books and models. Those left are either old armies (slaves, beasts, serpahon, vampires) or an extension of a portion of an old one (gitz, khone, slaanesh, courts), leaving only kharadrons and bonereapers as the only new ones.
For cities i wait to see how much of an overhaul they get to categorize them.
Ps: since they said that the cities release will be human focused, i expect that final model to be hedonites or vampires rather than privateers.
Fayric wrote: Great news to se lizardmen and goblins get some love, and possibly something like dark elf corsairs. Together with "slaves to darkness" there is a clear trend they go back to nostalgia rather than try to drop brand new amies no one can relate to.
Also, no stormcasts in the teaser.
Good, in my oppinion.
This is more of a focus on getting rid of old resin pieces and bringing the models in line with how they're meant to look now. Saurus for example. The models right now really look little like how they're presented in the seraphon tome. And the new gitz boss is obviously to get rid of the old resin skarsnik.
chaos0xomega wrote: Some are outsourced, some are produced in Nottingham. Seems to depend on the kit, and I think more recently most of the new terrain releases have been Nottingham-made.
Considering how messy China has been with shipping things and the like it wouldn't surprise me if GW were doing more terrain in-house and outsourcing less of it just to cut down on shipping issues. Considering that they can do terrain inhouse anyway. Things like card stock, books and such almost all have to come from overseas as
I believe the in-sourcing of terrain was always part of the plan. The outsourcing of terrain to china in the first place was mostly down to issues of manufacturing capacity/bandwidth (same with Endless Spells and select other plastics) - simply put GW couldn't maintain its release schedule and product plan without going out to other suppliers to supplement their pipeline with additional capacity. With the completion of their warehouse and factory expansion, etc. (which I believe completed earlier this year IIRC), I would assume that its no longer necessary to outsource those products and they can bring them back in-house.
Danny76 wrote: I was gonna say watching the video I thought immediately it was just new Saurus Cav
Saurus Cavalry may easily get a boost in size and oomph and fit a slot more like 'superheavy' cavalry, like the drakoth-riding stormcast, bloodcrusher and so on. That would also open up another slot for skinks on more slender, smaller lizards as light cavalry.
Is not Saurus Cav. Rider has to be a skink, since is standing on top of the dinosaur.
