Sarouan wrote: I too think the counter is about the reveal of this new box.
To kick off our introduction to the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar, a box packed with brand new miniatures and a special edition of the rule book will be coming. Suffice to say the stunning new Stormcast Eternals we saw on Saturday are making an appearance, but who will they be fighting against?
I winced at these words. It sounds like "as long as stock is available, then forever gone", Indomitus style.
But well...wait and see.
The only thing you'd miss out on is the cover for the rule book and whatever discount it offers
Otherwise everything else in the set will be coming out on individual sale, even if a few weeks/months later for some things.
Yeah, but... that hasn't exactly gone well for the Indomitus models, has it? If you want the stuff that didn't make it into the starter boxes, you're paying through the nose. To the tune of something like $500 total for a $199 box (including rulebook, which you don't get). And that's if you're doing the sane thing and buying the starter boxes rather than buying a single unit box that are ~half the cost of the elite starter for 1 out of the 4 units that are in it and none of the characters.
Yes and that's the same if you miss out a christmas bundle box or a duel army pack or any other limited volume discount box.
That... isn't the same at all. A christmas bundle box is always existing kits that you can currently buy. They don't vanish and pieces get put up for sale months later at a single sprue for... $140, nearly _three quarters_ of the price of the entire box.
Whatever bizarre equivalence you're trying to draw, that's just flatly incorrect.
The starter box is a discount bundle box.
When the starter box goes out of production/off sale then the individual models within are released to the market. This might well be at a higher price than before.
The models are still accessible, more expensive, but accessible to the market. Therefor if you do not purchase the discount starter box (or you come to the hobby/army after the box has been withdrawn from sale) then yes you will pay more.
That's directly the same thing as duel army boxes GW has been using over the last few years to launch new models; its similar to a christmas box where they offer you a short term discount on models.
What I'm saying is that just because the starter box is removed from sale doesn't mean models unique to that box are going to be lost to the market.
I have 18 gluttons. Not a single duplicate. And they all look the same from distance. People fetishize "unique poses" like it actually shows in a unit of more than 5.
Cronch wrote: I have 18 gluttons. Not a single duplicate. And they all look the same from distance. People fetishize "unique poses" like it actually shows in a unit of more than 5.
Gluttons probably look the same because their poses are, by design, identical except for the guy holding a bear trap and the standard bearer. At least back in the day they had the excuse of needing to be ranked up, but these days the "do you want their weapon pointed down a bit, or straight up, all with their arms braced by their side?" is probably the most damning example of identical poses.
What I'm saying is that just because the starter box is removed from sale doesn't mean models unique to that box are going to be lost to the market.
Deth koptas, cultist heavy weapons. Is the DG model back on sale?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote: I have 18 gluttons. Not a single duplicate. And they all look the same from distance. People fetishize "unique poses" like it actually shows in a unit of more than 5.
You know there's eye doctor to help with your problem don't you?
tneva82 wrote: Options at least. I have 170 or so and I suspect there's not single duplicate. Except maybe by accident.
Then take ogor gluttons. If it was designed now you would get 6 with only options being weapon combo. So 2 box and you would have all options. I have 24 of them and not even CLOSE to having duplicate models. And that's bad box in itself yet is better than current ones.
Stone trolls? I have 12. All unique. Now it would be 3 models and that's it. 12 I would have 4 times same 3 models.
Eh, the current Rock Troggoths for AoS are actually a really blood neat kit, due to the way it's designed you can have any combination of two arms and any head on any body, it's quite neat in terms of poses.
What I'm saying is that just because the starter box is removed from sale doesn't mean models unique to that box are going to be lost to the market.
Deth koptas, cultist heavy weapons. Is the DG model back on sale?
Deff koptas were from Assault on black reach, which is like three or four starter sets old now and was made before GW's leadership change. They did re-release it as part of some Toys R Us range, but I think it was US exclusive. But yeah, DV Chosen and Cultist never got a separate release. And I think DG got everything important from DI except the Lord of Contagion. Sadly, since GW is apparently phasing out start collectings, I doubt we'll get both sides in a SC boxes :(
tneva82 wrote: Options at least. I have 170 or so and I suspect there's not single duplicate. Except maybe by accident.
Then take ogor gluttons. If it was designed now you would get 6 with only options being weapon combo. So 2 box and you would have all options. I have 24 of them and not even CLOSE to having duplicate models. And that's bad box in itself yet is better than current ones.
Stone trolls? I have 12. All unique. Now it would be 3 models and that's it. 12 I would have 4 times same 3 models.
Eh, the current Rock Troggoths for AoS are actually a really blood neat kit, due to the way it's designed you can have any combination of two arms and any head on any body, it's quite neat in terms of poses.
For whatever reason GW show the same 3 models even though the kit could be used to make a huge range of options.
But yeah, GW have shown they can make models with lots of options without resorting to ugly joint designs like the old old models. In the other thread we were discussion the Escher and Goliath models which have 5 unique bodies, but any set of arms can be attached to them giving lots of variability.
It's odd that they don't put similar effort into other kits.
tneva82 wrote: Options at least. I have 170 or so and I suspect there's not single duplicate. Except maybe by accident.
Then take ogor gluttons. If it was designed now you would get 6 with only options being weapon combo. So 2 box and you would have all options. I have 24 of them and not even CLOSE to having duplicate models. And that's bad box in itself yet is better than current ones.
Stone trolls? I have 12. All unique. Now it would be 3 models and that's it. 12 I would have 4 times same 3 models.
All of those with zero cutting or sculpting ability needed. Having to be sculptor to modify looks is big step backwards.
So basically the solution is multiple rotating heads? Because that's really the biggest factor in the ghoul kit as the hands aren't rotatable(unless you want ugly gaps and weird shoulders). Also have an Ogor army and the variety isn't exactly on the menu even if they do eat everything that goes their way.
Regarding optional heads I would say that the SoB lines have been very good. Multiple heads that can be rotated. Same with many Space Marine kits right before Primaris. Multiple heads in each with rotating heads.I think the worst head option so far was the new Necron Warrior kit as part of the head is affixed to the torso so you can't really do much with it.
I am all for more head options even if I have a box of unused heads. There is just something amazing about having all those heads for future conversion projects that is just delightful. So I agree, more heads is good.
What I'm saying is that just because the starter box is removed from sale doesn't mean models unique to that box are going to be lost to the market.
Deth koptas, cultist heavy weapons. Is the DG model back on sale?
Deff koptas were from Assault on black reach, which is like three or four starter sets old now and was made before GW's leadership change. They did re-release it as part of some Toys R Us range, but I think it was US exclusive. But yeah, DV Chosen and Cultist never got a separate release. And I think DG got everything important from DI except the Lord of Contagion. Sadly, since GW is apparently phasing out start collectings, I doubt we'll get both sides in a SC boxes :(
Both versions of the Lord of Contagion are missing as they removed the ETB version as well. I get the feeling they expect everyone to convert Typhus into a Lord of Contagion from now on. I mean, it is good conversion base, but annoying for those who have no interest in conversions.
The Deff Kopta is perhaps the strangest unavailability of this all. Beautiful - even if it is simplistic - kit that was removed in favor of the ugly ass kit we have on the GW web page.
Overread wrote: What I'm saying is that just because the starter box is removed from sale doesn't mean models unique to that box are going to be lost to the market.
Oh really? DV cultists/chosen? DA etb Terminator squad? Captain with combi-melta? DI Gravis captain and Reaper lord? Plastic skaven? Etc, etc...
NinthMusketeer wrote: Yeah. The 'multi-pose' generally boiled down to 2-3 poses that actually looked decent, and were worse looking than they could have been because they needed to accommodate the two dozen other pose options that looked awful.
Also, anyone babbling about 'multipose' kits apparently never tried to put together BA/DA/SW terminators, frakking things go together only ONE way (DA being worst offender, their robes have space for specific belts inside so no mixing and matching robes/legs/torsos, it has to be one specific set and if you use the legs for robeless apothecary/ancient/regular termie, you can trash big portion of the sprue) and the end result is still much worse than primaris anyway. I'll take ""monopose"" over this 'multipose' junk any day
Also, don't forget that the true variety from older kits actually came from people converting the miniatures, either in a very small way like cutting an arm at the elbow and slightly turning it a bit more or using a part from another kit, or either more heavily conversion involving green stuff sculpting.
It's the same with current "monopose" kits from AoS, mind you, because you know...still ol' GW plastic. Easy to cut, easy to bend. Especially when they're getting thinner than before.
Cronch wrote: I have 18 gluttons. Not a single duplicate. And they all look the same from distance. People fetishize "unique poses" like it actually shows in a unit of more than 5.
You know there's eye doctor to help with your problem don't you?
No need to be insulting, 'cause he's right. Old kits were always having the same pose, for two reasons : 1 you need to have all combinations of arms / torso / legs / heads to be compatible and 2 they were made for Warhammer Battle that was rank)-and-file unit-based and they needed the miniatures to be able to be put base to base (even if that was really clunky towards the end with the miniatures getting bigger but the bases staying the same). You can't do that if the poses are wildly different so that they keep pushing each other away with their arms, cloaks, weapons, and so on. That's why the old dark elf corsairs had all their cloaks moving in the same direction (first backwards then forward) - and it was still a pain to put them right in units, sometimes...
And once you look at the battlefield from a higher position, they tend to look similar, 'cause that's how human eyes work. They only see the small details / differences up close.
Also, with age, your sight gets worse and it's natural. You'll suffer the same fate too eventually, so better not to be condescending, young one.
I like that blades or lances , they have the same rules.
At this point GW has shown that they aren't capable of balancing normal weapons vs charge bonus weapons for cavalry so they just saying "feth it lets they build them as they want" is actually positive. Specially, with how simple weapon profiles are in aos, you always have one option that is mathematically better agaisnt nearly all cases. Most AoS units would benefit for having a single weapon profile and let the options be aesthetic.
Tim the Biovore wrote: Yeah, the left is part of Dreadstone Blight, and that's Skullvane Manse in the background
Ah so it is thanks it would be great if they’d rerelease some of those kits that they continue to use in the pictures even the AoS 3 preview image is full of OOP kits.
Tim the Biovore wrote: Yeah, the left is part of Dreadstone Blight, and that's Skullvane Manse in the background
Ah so it is thanks it would be great if they’d rerelease some of those kits that they continue to use in the pictures even the AoS 3 preview image is full of OOP kits.
Amen to that. Would love some of the old kits back, even if they didn't fit together all the time. Just want more unique terrain for AoS that isn't faction terrain.
They have brought back some of the old scenery in the past. For example, the Warscryer Citadel (aka, the Skullvane Manse) was available as a part of Malign Portents in early 2018. Right now I would rather they get some of this stuff that's needed for some armies back into circulation first.
Galas wrote: I like that blades or lances , they have the same rules.
At this point GW has shown that they aren't capable of balancing normal weapons vs charge bonus weapons for cavalry so they just saying "feth it lets they build them as they want" is actually positive. Specially, with how simple weapon profiles are in aos, you always have one option that is mathematically better agaisnt nearly all cases. Most AoS units would benefit for having a single weapon profile and let the options be aesthetic.
Galas wrote: I like that blades or lances , they have the same rules.
At this point GW has shown that they aren't capable of balancing normal weapons vs charge bonus weapons for cavalry so they just saying "feth it lets they build them as they want" is actually positive. Specially, with how simple weapon profiles are in aos, you always have one option that is mathematically better agaisnt nearly all cases. Most AoS units would benefit for having a single weapon profile and let the options be aesthetic.
I've long thought that AoS is going to need some more division between units in terms of damage types, armours and unit types and such. The more they grow armies the more they trip over each other easily with such a simple system as they have now. Seeing weapons with exactly the same profiles now is kinda pushing it even more into that region.
Then again when I did the numbers on Ossiarchs about the only real difference was 2 inches on spears and 1 inch on swords in terms of average damage dealt. Small units you'd take swords, big ones you'd take spears
Galas wrote: I like that blades or lances , they have the same rules.
At this point GW has shown that they aren't capable of balancing normal weapons vs charge bonus weapons for cavalry so they just saying "feth it lets they build them as they want" is actually positive. Specially, with how simple weapon profiles are in aos, you always have one option that is mathematically better agaisnt nearly all cases. Most AoS units would benefit for having a single weapon profile and let the options be aesthetic.
Sadly this is very true.
Why is this sad?
Because it would be nice if units could have multiple options and all of those options be viable.
I’ve always wanted to like rules that you get after killing things, but I tend to find the unit is either too damaged or it’s too late in the game to be worth anything. I mean, I don’t play competitive so I probably don’t kill stuff as fast as some do.
Galas wrote: I like that blades or lances , they have the same rules.
At this point GW has shown that they aren't capable of balancing normal weapons vs charge bonus weapons for cavalry so they just saying "feth it lets they build them as they want" is actually positive. Specially, with how simple weapon profiles are in aos, you always have one option that is mathematically better agaisnt nearly all cases. Most AoS units would benefit for having a single weapon profile and let the options be aesthetic.
Sadly this is very true.
Why is this sad?
Because it would be nice if units could have multiple options and all of those options be viable.
Been playing video games for over 30 years. If they can't manage it there, it's never going to happen on the tabletop. There is always one option above the rest that will dominate, and when you nerf it, the next thing will take its place. Personally, I like this new apporach. One of the big draws so far for AoS for me has been the ability to model without having to sweat what happens if I pick the "wrong" options. I agree with others that this is a very positive step. The farther they move from trying to be "competitive" and cater to the crowd, the more money I want to give them and the more participation in games I want to do.
Togusa wrote: Been playing video games for over 30 years. If they can't manage it there, it's never going to happen on the tabletop.
Balance in (good) video games is often on a knife's edge and with the imbalance only being noticeable among the most skilled players (and imbalance often blamed where in reality it's a skill difference). Often you can take a mid to low range option according to the internet and be competitive with good players or even wipe the floor with bad ones.
Balance in GW's games is often so bad that you could beat someone across the head with a lead pipe and they'd still be able to tell you which option is clearly and obviously superior because the difference is often mathematically obvious (and by mathematically I don't mean maths professor sitting in his basement for hours, I mean middle school student counting on their fingers should be able to figure it out).
Because it would be nice if units could have multiple options and all of those options be viable.
Perfect balance is an illusion.
Here, the good part is since there's only one profile, that means it doesn't matter how you build your miniatures. You could even convert a mace instead of a sword, because there is no confusion possible while in game.
It's like KoW : it's a good thing for modelism and creativity.
Sometimes, there is no need to give options when they can make it simple with just one weapon profile. That's how Khorne knights on Juggernaut ended with lances instead of the emblematic axes in Warhammer Battle : because the first was way more interesting in terms of rules with their role as a shock heavy cavalry, even though it has a cost - simply, it was negligible for their profile's gain.
Been playing video games for over 30 years. If they can't manage it there, it's never going to happen on the tabletop. There is always one option above the rest that will dominate, and when you nerf it, the next thing will take its place
Which games are you playing?
I mean one weapons dominating its class is normal, but one weapon dominating over all available types is rare
that there is 1 best Sniper Rifle is one thing, but the Sniper Rifle dominating over everything and being better than the full Auto in all situations would just be a bad game
that there is 1 weapon that is the best for a specific situation is one thing, but that 1 generic weapons is better than the specific weapon in the specific situations is bad balancing
and this is were GW's rules writing comes in, were the anti-horde weapons as better at killing monsters than the anti-monster weapons
and this is not something I have seen in most video games or wargame
Putting fake choices just for the sake of it is not a viable option. If the unit works for a specific role, there is no need to try to put options that wouldn't be necessary and imply a very specific build from the kit (especially if the said options can't be done from just one box because of the lack of needed weapons on the sprue - you criticized GW a lot in the past about that specific part, by the way, you want it back now ? ).
Galas wrote: I like that blades or lances , they have the same rules.
At this point GW has shown that they aren't capable of balancing normal weapons vs charge bonus weapons for cavalry so they just saying "feth it lets they build them as they want" is actually positive. Specially, with how simple weapon profiles are in aos, you always have one option that is mathematically better agaisnt nearly all cases. Most AoS units would benefit for having a single weapon profile and let the options be aesthetic.
Sadly this is very true.
Why is this sad?
Because it would be nice if units could have multiple options and all of those options be viable.
Been playing video games for over 30 years. If they can't manage it there, it's never going to happen on the tabletop. There is always one option above the rest that will dominate, and when you nerf it, the next thing will take its place. Personally, I like this new apporach. One of the big draws so far for AoS for me has been the ability to model without having to sweat what happens if I pick the "wrong" options. I agree with others that this is a very positive step. The farther they move from trying to be "competitive" and cater to the crowd, the more money I want to give them and the more participation in games I want to do.
Yeah, it is a positive development. That's exactly why it's sad.
Because it would be nice if units could have multiple options and all of those options be viable.
Perfect balance is an illusion.
Hey it's the perfect balance fallacy! Also known as the 'how to tell someone has no validity to their opinion on balance whatsoever' argument. Been a surprisingly long time since I've seen it on Dakka.
Hey it's the perfect balance fallacy! Also known as the 'how to tell someone has no validity to their opinion on balance whatsoever' argument. Been a surprisingly long time since I've seen it on Dakka.
Not really. It was more to say "watch out for what you're asking for". I don't especially regret the days of Khorne knights on juggernauts being pushed into a weapon option that wasn't emblematic for their god just because one weapon profile is better in the rules than the other for their role. Even if its cost was higher than the less performant one, it was still way more worth it.
It's the same for musicians being generic to all basic units in Warhammer Battle. Sometimes, it just doesn't look good in a unit, yet you put in on your miniature because the rules for musicians in Battle was simply begging you to do so. On the opposite of standard bearers that could cripple you for victory points if you put in on every of your units...so instead of looking cool, your units are pushed in a wrong direction for the sake of rules. That's not good either.
Sure, deflect as usual. You just want to complain about GW and nothing else, anyway.
you came up with "this is normal for pay to win games"
so if you think AoS belongs to those games, fine but than don't compare it to other games or come up with this nonsense of "perfect blance is impossible"
you just stated that the bad balance of AoS is intended by the designers to make money
if this is your opinion of the game and your argument for why we don't need to talk about why having viable options would be a good thing, fine we can agree to disagree here
and yes fake choices are a problem and should not be there in the first place
either make it a real choice or remove it as an option
but this does not work with GW's WYSIWYG and "every option on the model must have rules" policy
you came up with "this is normal for pay to win games"
Nope, just answered your claim it was rare in video games. Told you it's not, and I'm making you remember "pay to win" video games are still video games. You didn't make a distinction in your first post.
Now you try to deflect because you can't counter it, so you go back on complaining on GW's bad choices no matter what they do.
Because, let's be honest here : what they did with Blood Knights is the same that how King of War from Mantic Games works - where it doesn't really matter if you hold an axe or sword in your unit, the profile is generic for the unit, not for each of the miniatures part of it.
But because it's AoS made by GW, suddenly it's a problem ?
I am actually happy to see a more unified weapon profile rather than separate ones. I also hope that the Stormcast Liberators get similar treatment when it comes to their next tome in regards to sword and hammer. They already did something similar to Skullreapers that was a very welcome change.
It also makes the game more enjoyable and accessible. Nobody is going to have fun building 30 Liberators with hammers only for the tome to suddenly make swords good forcing you to buy more units. Not everyone has endless space and money for units. One can forgive it in 40k as usually it is just 1-2 models in a unit that are changing, but for a game that is relatively close to being rank and file it is just too much.
Plus the game's complexity needs to be much larger for changes between weapons to matter, something that Warhammer never really had.
All in all I like it most because it allows me to create the unit I want without worrying about the rules. It gives, me the modeller/painter, the freedom to create.
On the point of balancing it is very hard mainly because you can't balance the unit by itself, but you must balance the entire game around the unit to justify the difference in weapon profiles. It's why we see the endless juggling of "what weapon is best" in 40k. Last edition it used to be Plasma and now it is melta, and before that it was Grav guns, and so on goes the wheel of fortune. So I tend to agree that absolute balance is an illusion. Even video games tend to separate units into explicit differences, like Marines and Firebats in StarCraft and so on.
But because it's AoS made by GW, suddenly it's a problem ?
My experience is the fallacy of many thinking that because GW is big they have absolute power to do things, when the truth is more that GW is still just average humans trying to make their best while also trying to score some money. It would be surprisingly healthy for many to attempt to balance things in homebrew games just to see how large a problem they are trivializing.
Been playing video games for over 30 years. If they can't manage it there, it's never going to happen on the tabletop. There is always one option above the rest that will dominate, and when you nerf it, the next thing will take its place
Which games are you playing?
I mean one weapons dominating its class is normal, but one weapon dominating over all available types is rare
that there is 1 best Sniper Rifle is one thing, but the Sniper Rifle dominating over everything and being better than the full Auto in all situations would just be a bad game
that there is 1 weapon that is the best for a specific situation is one thing, but that 1 generic weapons is better than the specific weapon in the specific situations is bad balancing
and this is were GW's rules writing comes in, were the anti-horde weapons as better at killing monsters than the anti-monster weapons
and this is not something I have seen in most video games or wargame
Well the thing is, in Age of Sigmar it's difficult for weapons to be good in specific situations, because the weapon's effectiveness has very little to do with the situation or the unit you are using it on. The hit and wound roll don't depend on the target unit at all. So the only situation affecting those would be if you or the opponent have an ability that lets you re-roll fails or make you re-roll successes on one of those. Otherwise a 3+ to hit 5+ to wound is the same as a 5+ to hit 3+ to wound.
Because damage carries over between models, the damage characteristic doesn't care about the situation. And rend only matters if the target is something that isn't affected by it at all, or has no save to begin with. So how can you make weapons profiles that are better in certain situations? The core rules don't really make it possible.
Well the thing is, in Age of Sigmar it's difficult for weapons to be good in specific situations, because the weapon's effectiveness has very little to do with the situation or the unit you are using it on. The hit and wound roll don't depend on the target unit at all. So the only situation affecting those would be if you or the opponent have an ability that lets you re-roll fails or make you re-roll successes on one of those. Otherwise a 3+ to hit 5+ to wound is the same as a 5+ to hit 3+ to wound.
Because damage carries over between models, the damage characteristic doesn't care about the situation. And rend only matters if the target is something that isn't affected by it at all, or has no save to begin with. So how can you make weapons profiles that are better in certain situations? The core rules don't really make it possible.
of course the option are limited
but you still can do it, with simple things like +1 Attack VS +1AP, or using the range of the weapon making it even worth using 2 units with different weapons
looking at the early Stormcast Paladin units with 3 different weapons (just messed them up by going with better defence means slower speed which was removed for other similar units coming later)
it is possible to do it, even with the limited options AoS has but it is more work and for sure easier to just leave options behind and make a unit doing 1 thing and nothing more
hence why it is sad that this is happening (neither good not bad, just sad)
you came up with "this is normal for pay to win games"
Nope, just answered your claim it was rare in video games. Told you it's not, and I'm making you remember "pay to win" video games are still video games. You didn't make a distinction in your first post.
sorry, I did not know that "rare" was not distinction enough
I thought because "rare" does not mean "all of them" it was clear that there are exceptions and because you mentioned Pay To Win as excplicit exception were this is "normal" that you mean AoS is also such an exception were this is "normal"
Because, let's be honest here : what they did with Blood Knights is the same that how King of War from Mantic Games works - where it doesn't really matter if you hold an axe or sword in your unit, the profile is generic for the unit, not for each of the miniatures part of it.
But because it's AoS made by GW, suddenly it's a problem ?
Well, in KoW units have options that matter as giving up defence to have better offensive power, get stronger shooting at less range etc.
We are not talking about a Sword must be different than an Axe which are both treated as One-Handed Melee weapons with the same profile
But if a Sword has the same rules as a Lance for Cavalry and in Kings of War, they have not
there is even a difference if Cavalry has Two-Handed Swords or Lances, somehting simple like always +1 VS +2 on the charge
Or Infantry havin Sword+Shield can exchange them for two-handed weapons (+1 Strength, -1 Defence) or 2 hand weapons (+1 Attack, -1 Defence) with none of them being mathematically better than others without considering the unit they fight against
but I guess this is already pay to win for you or not perfectly balanced any more but for sure not a viable option worth having and KoW would be better off if all units whould have the same
PS: just to be clear, if we talk about AoS and your only argument is "but Kings of War", this is called whataboutism and not considered a good argument in discussions
Theres only three real differences in weapons options that AOS ruleset supports:
-Range: You can have options of sword/X and spears in a unit. The only real difference is: take swords in small units spears in big. For such an obvious choice the game would lose nothing for it being removed.
-Elite vs Chaff: One option can have more, weaker attacks, and other less, stronger ones. But even there, with damage spillover and only rend being relevant, most of the time you end up with one option being better all around.
-Meele vs Ranged: This is an obvious difference, not many units can take a choice of weapon between meele and ranged but this is a real option. In reality most units are separated between shooting and meele units.
With ranged weapons, the Range variance is more relevant but with how little impact AoS terrain does and how fast everything is, not even that much.
So in conclusion, most units would benefit from having just one weapon option and as much weapon profiles as needed: A special weapon for X models in a unit for example, meele and ranged profiles for the same weapon, etc...
EDIT: Reading Kodos I forgot about the option of offense vs defense. Thats a good one that AoS support. Taking a second weapon vs taking shields or two handed weapons vs weapon and shield, for example.
So, setting aside ranged option which is often going to be a different unit, I guess you still could have:
2-handed weapon which has low attacks but better rend (situational because it could be slightly better than having many attacks with no rend against a unit with good saves)
weapon in each hand which gives more attacks but without rend (opposite situational benefit from the above)
weapon and shield which has low attacks and rend but gives some kind of defensive benefit, so could make them better at surviving against certain kinds of attaks
spear and shield, which has longer range but maybe less likely to hit, so it's better if the unit is big? I'm not sure it's very "situational", since you control how the the unit is at least to start with, so it might make the choice pretty obvious, but they will degrade more as they lose models, so it is a little different. And a big block of guys with spears looks cool, so I'd hate to lose it.
So really, I guess you could have about the same options with similar benefits/drawbacks to what you would have had in warhammer fantasy. It just doesn't feel like it would make that big of a difference, compared to the special rules and command abilities that seem like they do more.
Galas wrote: I like that blades or lances , they have the same rules.
At this point GW has shown that they aren't capable of balancing normal weapons vs charge bonus weapons for cavalry so they just saying "feth it lets they build them as they want" is actually positive. Specially, with how simple weapon profiles are in aos, you always have one option that is mathematically better agaisnt nearly all cases. Most AoS units would benefit for having a single weapon profile and let the options be aesthetic.
Sadly this is very true.
Why is this sad?
Because it would be nice if units could have multiple options and all of those options be viable.
Been playing video games for over 30 years. If they can't manage it there, it's never going to happen on the tabletop.
I certainly wouldn't say they "can't manage it there". One of my favourite sets of weapon profiles is probably in the skirmish game Battle Brothers, where each weapon had such specific and different abilities (stun with clubs, bypass shields with flails, destroy shields with axes, parry with swords, spearwall with, well, spears), that it was actually impossible to really compare them. Some combinations were perhaps worse (why have axes if already having flails?), but all weapons had a role. The same level of detail doesn't always make sense in a larger scale game however, and, as said above, the design space in AoS is overall pretty limited. Fewer but more variable and interesting choices combined with freedom to model figures for aesthetics seems beneficial over marginally different options that are effectively the same or clearly unbalanced.
Galas wrote: I like that blades or lances , they have the same rules.
At this point GW has shown that they aren't capable of balancing normal weapons vs charge bonus weapons for cavalry so they just saying "feth it lets they build them as they want" is actually positive. Specially, with how simple weapon profiles are in aos, you always have one option that is mathematically better agaisnt nearly all cases. Most AoS units would benefit for having a single weapon profile and let the options be aesthetic.
Sadly this is very true.
Why is this sad?
Because it would be nice if units could have multiple options and all of those options be viable.
Been playing video games for over 30 years. If they can't manage it there, it's never going to happen on the tabletop.
I certainly wouldn't say they "can't manage it there". One of my favourite sets of weapon profiles is probably in the skirmish game Battle Brothers, where each weapon had such specific and different abilities (stun with clubs, bypass shields with flails, destroy shields with axes, parry with swords, spearwall with, well, spears), that it was actually impossible to really compare them. Some combinations were perhaps worse (why have axes if already having flails?), but all weapons had a role. The same level of detail doesn't always make sense in a larger scale game however, and, as said above, the design space in AoS is overall pretty limited. Fewer but more variable and interesting choices combined with freedom to model figures for aesthetics seems beneficial over marginally different options that are effectively the same or clearly unbalanced.
I just want to say that kudos for mentioning battle brothers. I put 80 hours in the alpha alone before the map rework (Where you could only explore the map and fight undeads , goblins and orcs) . Beautifull game, and I have taken a ton of inspiration in how to make different medieval weapons feel tactically usefull in my homebrew RPG system without making them just different kinds of damage dice.
Arbitrator wrote: Fly High but only for Mannlet so I don't imagine it'll be that great in practise.
The ability to leave combat before combat has started is a powerful ability for a keystone unit that might well mobbed. Sure its just him, but he's a huge chunk of power and points in one package. Plus it lets you be a touch reckless and even use him to bait your opponent into moving units to close on him only to leap away.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: I certainly wouldn't say they "can't manage it there". One of my favourite sets of weapon profiles is probably in the skirmish game Battle Brothers, where each weapon had such specific and different abilities (stun with clubs, bypass shields with flails, destroy shields with axes, parry with swords, spearwall with, well, spears), that it was actually impossible to really compare them.
Well, there's something to be said about rock paper scissor begin the most balanced game ever. It's not a dig against Battle Brothers, it's a great game, but having clear X beats Y beats Z matchups often makes rule sets easy to solve.
Which isn't to say GW rule sets are hard to solve.
Legion of Night can take Vargheist as battleline for some reason.
And probably one of the more annoying abilities:
Mannfred is now the most amazing donkey-cave in the game
"I charge Mannfred with my big bad"
"Nope"
"I charge Mannfred with my elites"
"nope"
"I charge Mannfred with my easy to kill chaff"
"Yes now it is time to fight..."
Legion of Night can take Vargheist as battleline for some reason.
And probably one of the more annoying abilities:
Mannfred is now the most amazing donkey-cave in the game
"I charge Mannfred with my big bad"
"Nope"
"I charge Mannfred with my elites"
"nope"
"I charge Mannfred with my easy to kill chaff"
"Yes now it is time to fight..."
narrative forged...
Brave sir Mannfred bravely ran away,
Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Arbitrator wrote: Fly High but only for Mannlet so I don't imagine it'll be that great in practise.
The ability to leave combat before combat has started is a powerful ability for a keystone unit that might well mobbed. Sure its just him, but he's a huge chunk of power and points in one package. Plus it lets you be a touch reckless and even use him to bait your opponent into moving units to close on him only to leap away.
Unless they nerf his meiee abilities that's lots of melee power you are giving up though
Edit: oh had misread. Start of combat phase. That's def interesting.
-Range: You can have options of sword/X and spears in a unit. The only real difference is: take swords in small units spears in big. For such an obvious choice the game would lose nothing for it being removed.
just to add something that AoS supports but is kind of lost here, you can take 2 small units, one with long range weapons and one with sword+shield
get the one with shields in the first row, and opponents with short range weapons can only attack the unit with better defense while the other unit is save to attack from behind
if this is removed because it is easier for all weapon options being the same, the game will lose on tactical options (and there are not many to begin with)
Well I did say Mannfreds ability is "annoying" and unless it is FAQ it means basically that Manny will not be fighting fights he does not want to do. And it is not one use ability!
As (if I remember this corretly) charge phase preceeds combat phase you could charge Mannfred against a unit (or just get within 3" of one) then you could teleport him somewhere else.
Legion of Night can take Vargheist as battleline for some reason.
Right, so... seems the dynasties and Legions have different 'alt' Battleline units.
Suspect there's 'core' Battleline in the form of Skeletons and Zombies...and then the alt units...
Legion of Night - Vargheist
Legion of Blood - Black Knights
Kastelai Dynasty - Blood Knights
Avengorii Dynasty - Terrorgheists and Zombie Dragons
Vyrkos - Dire Wolves.
kodos wrote: [
But if a Sword has the same rules as a Lance for Cavalry and in Kings of War, they have not
there is even a difference if Cavalry has Two-Handed Swords or Lances, somehting simple like always +1 VS +2 on the charge
Thing is, in KoW, cavalry units like Basilean Paladin Knights do have Thunderous Charge (2) rule, but no specific options. When you build their miniatures, that means it doesn't matter if you build / convert them with lances or swords or even maces, because in the end what matters is that they're Paladin Knights. They will all use the same rules in the end.
And that's my point with AoS Blood Knights you don't want to see ; it's the same than KoW on that matter. It doesn't matter if you equip the miniatures with lances or swords, they will attack all just the same because they're simply Blood Knights. And like other people here, I think it's good for modelism and balancing the game - the same way it's good for KoW.
Sotahullu wrote: Well I did say Mannfreds ability is "annoying" and unless it is FAQ it means basically that Manny will not be fighting fights he does not want to do. And it is not one use ability!
Depends. If the opponent also have abilities triggering at the start of the combat phase (like some units choosed to fight at the start of the combat phase), unless rules change in 3rd edition, when it is your opponent's turn he's the one to decide which ability come first. And he will likely choose one of his own.
Meaning units striking first could damage Mannfred during their turn before he's fleeing.
But I agree it's very specific and unlikely to kill him in one phase in all situations...and that sucks for some armies that don't have these tricks anyway and rely heavily on melee still.
Then, it's also one hero unit and in a game where objectives matter.. Having one model escaping death is useless if you lose the game anyway because the rest of your army is dead. Because if Mannfred uses this ability, that means he can't strike at all during this combat phase - and thus, damage no one.
Legion of Night can take Vargheist as battleline for some reason.
Right, so... seems the dynasties and Legions have different 'alt' Battleline units.
Suspect there's 'core' Battleline in the form of Skeletons and Zombies...and then the alt units...
Legion of Night - Vargheist
Legion of Blood - Black Knights
Kastelai Dynasty - Blood Knights
Avengorii Dynasty - Terrorgheists and Zombie Dragons
Vyrkos - Dire Wolves.
Soulblight armies could take vargheists and blood knights as battleline in legions of nagash, so it's all familiar.
Very similar to flesh eaters where each subfaction has different battleline-if units.
So...Mannfred and his friends get vargheists as battleline. But probably not the woman who is a vampire/bat/centaur monster and was shown in artwork surrounded by them, as well as having vampires that are more bestial? >:/
I could say the same about Vykros. Vargheist are better suited for other factions
Q: In a Pitched Battle, if a unit that is a Behemoth can be taken as Battleline, does that unit still count towards the total number of Behemoths that can be taken in the army?
-Range: You can have options of sword/X and spears in a unit. The only real difference is: take swords in small units spears in big. For such an obvious choice the game would lose nothing for it being removed.
just to add something that AoS supports but is kind of lost here, you can take 2 small units, one with long range weapons and one with sword+shield
get the one with shields in the first row, and opponents with short range weapons can only attack the unit with better defense while the other unit is save to attack from behind
if this is removed because it is easier for all weapon options being the same, the game will lose on tactical options (and there are not many to begin with)
I do that with my Ogres Ironguts with a front row of gnoblars. Is actually quite funny when people realize they can't hit the ogres and the ogres are killing them at droves. But it would be easier to just allow to mix weapons options in the same unit.
How do you do that? Don't you have to get within 1/2 inch of an enemy model when you charge? So how does that unit in back accomplish that while being behind another unit?
Q: In a Pitched Battle, if a unit that is a Behemoth can be taken as Battleline, does that unit still count towards the total number of Behemoths that can be taken in the army?
A: No
Note this only applies in pitched battles (not meeting engagements if you play that). At 300 points a piece (if they are the same price as in the FEC book) you’d be able to take 3 in a 1k list provided you could field a leader for 100 points. Keep in mind though that your ability to claim objectives would be terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albino Squirrel wrote: How do you do that? Don't you have to get within 1/2 inch of an enemy model when you charge? So how does that unit in back accomplish that while being behind another unit?
You have the gnoblars receive the charge. Then, the iron guts are within 3 inches of the unit that charged the gnoblars, so they are allowed to pile in and fight (which they can do because of a 2 inch range).
Arbitrator wrote: Fly High but only for Mannlet so I don't imagine it'll be that great in practise.
The ability to leave combat before combat has started is a powerful ability for a keystone unit that might well mobbed. Sure its just him, but he's a huge chunk of power and points in one package. Plus it lets you be a touch reckless and even use him to bait your opponent into moving units to close on him only to leap away.
I think it's cool and thematic while not being over the top, specifically because it is just on him.
Legion of Night can take Vargheist as battleline for some reason.
Right, so... seems the dynasties and Legions have different 'alt' Battleline units.
Suspect there's 'core' Battleline in the form of Skeletons and Zombies...and then the alt units...
Legion of Night - Vargheist
Legion of Blood - Black Knights
Kastelai Dynasty - Blood Knights
Avengorii Dynasty - Terrorgheists and Zombie Dragons
Vyrkos - Dire Wolves.
A bit wrong here: Dire wolves are universal BL for the faction. Maybe they will get another treatment, like extra cheap wolvies, which will make them my default flavour then.
Does a unit being 'battleline' override the maximum number of those types of units you can take in a game?
Like with the Zombie Dragon, can I now take more than 2 (or however many) behemoths in 1000 points because they're battleline?
Unless stated otherwise (which has been never, afaIk): if I run 2000 points as Seraphon Thunder Lizard, I can bring 3 Stegas and they won't count as Behemoths since they became BL, but I still can only deploy 4 Behemoths of any other kind. Same happened since Beastclaws have been around.
In first edition being battleline was in addition to counting against the behemoth limit, they changed that with second edition 'tomes so that being battleline is instead of being a behemoth.
This does affect certain scenarios where those models will no longer count as behemoths when it could be beneficial.
Been playing video games for over 30 years. If they can't manage it there, it's never going to happen on the tabletop. There is always one option above the rest that will dominate, and when you nerf it, the next thing will take its place
Which games are you playing?
I mean one weapons dominating its class is normal, but one weapon dominating over all available types is rare
that there is 1 best Sniper Rifle is one thing, but the Sniper Rifle dominating over everything and being better than the full Auto in all situations would just be a bad game
that there is 1 weapon that is the best for a specific situation is one thing, but that 1 generic weapons is better than the specific weapon in the specific situations is bad balancing
and this is were GW's rules writing comes in, were the anti-horde weapons as better at killing monsters than the anti-monster weapons
and this is not something I have seen in most video games or wargame
I play a lot of Hunt: Showdown. Where the Dolche 96 reigns as king over literally every other weapon and has for years now since the game came out of beta.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: I certainly wouldn't say they "can't manage it there". One of my favourite sets of weapon profiles is probably in the skirmish game Battle Brothers, where each weapon had such specific and different abilities (stun with clubs, bypass shields with flails, destroy shields with axes, parry with swords, spearwall with, well, spears), that it was actually impossible to really compare them.
Well, there's something to be said about rock paper scissor begin the most balanced game ever. It's not a dig against Battle Brothers, it's a great game, but having clear X beats Y beats Z matchups often makes rule sets easy to solve.
Which isn't to say GW rule sets are hard to solve.
That's not remotely what I was describing or what's the case in that game though, at least in my experience. It's not that spears win versus swords or swords win versus spears. They can both very much beat each other, but do so in different ways. Preference will depend on playstyle, and lead into different selection of (in)directly beneficial skills. Some weapons might be more useful against certain opponents, but since you'll be facing them all, you'll need a mixture to deal with them.
That said, a more complex rock-paper-scissors situation doesn't make for a bad wargame either. Hordes of the Things springs to mind (haven't played it yet, just looking into it), with 20 different options of which some are explicitly meant to beat some, and as a result be weak to other options in its very simple combat system. The sheer range of options and potential variation in two opposing armies, plus variation in special skills of certain units outside of combat, makes it near-impossible to have clear best choices though I imagine. If A is strong against B and weak against C, what's the best counter to an army consisting of 1A, 2B, 1C, 1E, 4H and 1L? Plus there's positioning, with different troops also having some variation in movements in different area types, etc. Getting back to AoS/GW, it's a pretty interesting look at how simplified unit types and meaningful special rules can make for a very interesting game that has certainly withstood the test of time. The only issue, however, would be that while it would be boring with fewer options, it seems unfeasible to expand it to cover a much larger and increasingly growing number of options while retaining interesting and meaningful variation. Benefits of a ruleset not tied to new miniature releases and miniature-based sales of course.
But I agree it's very specific and unlikely to kill him in one phase in all situations...and that sucks for some armies that don't have these tricks anyway and rely heavily on melee still.
Then, it's also one hero unit and in a game where objectives matter.. Having one model escaping death is useless if you lose the game anyway because the rest of your army is dead. Because if Mannfred uses this ability, that means he can't strike at all during this combat phase - and thus, damage no one.
Does bode bad for hopes of 3rd edition toning shooting when game gets more and more units that are super hard to kill with melee. Lumineth fox beasts are virtually invincible to melee and mannfred is only slightly easier
Q: In a Pitched Battle, if a unit that is a Behemoth can be taken as Battleline, does that unit still count towards the total number of Behemoths that can be taken in the army?
Legion of Night can take Vargheist as battleline for some reason.
Right, so... seems the dynasties and Legions have different 'alt' Battleline units.
Suspect there's 'core' Battleline in the form of Skeletons and Zombies...and then the alt units...
Legion of Night - Vargheist
Legion of Blood - Black Knights
Kastelai Dynasty - Blood Knights
Avengorii Dynasty - Terrorgheists and Zombie Dragons
Vyrkos - Dire Wolves.
A bit wrong here: Dire wolves are universal BL for the faction. Maybe they will get another treatment, like extra cheap wolvies, which will make them my default flavour then.
Good catch. For some reason my brain was not seeing them as battleline proper - would be an interesting change. But suspect they'll probably have a lot of Wolf specific buffs to be honest.
Personally leaning toward Legion of Blood myself for Black Knight battleline - which lets me just blob up the skeletons - much more useful in bigger numbers since the Grand Host of Nagash will no longer be a thing and they've changed how they come back...
The Cursed City stuff is still bought as a set Radaukar included but increased by 75 pts. and for the most part the scrolls are the same as the CC booklet or they actually lost some abilities.
Deadwalker Zombies near doubled in cost but are now min/max 20/40 there’s not much difference in the warscroll. EDIT ignore my initial post on cost I was comparing the cost of min 10 with min 20 so obviously they now cost nearly double .
Kanluwen wrote: Did they have access to this before for Zombies?
Because I'd say that can make a big difference.
Ive edited my post they are now bought in 20s rather than 10s so of course they would cost nearly twice as much! In fact they went down 5pts. When making that comparison.
Kanluwen wrote: Did they have access to this before for Zombies?
Because I'd say that can make a big difference.
Ive edited my post they are now bought in 20s rather than 10s so of course they would cost nearly twice as much! In fact they went down 5pts. When making that comparison.
I have actually went bit through these leaks (plenty to talk about) and there is lot of changes to unit prices and sizes.
One thing was that only Deadwalkers can be taken at unit size 40. Other units (deathrattle) are capped at 30 models at most.
Grave Guard are also battleline if Wight King is taken as general with unit size being 10 minimum (not 5 as previously).
There's pretty mixed reactions right now to a lot of the leaks for Soulblight Vampires.
But of course there would be. Every release is so heavily polarized these days, with a silent middle-ground that's actually pretty content with the state of things, content to watch the rest of the Internet go ballistic with perceived slights.
Either way, the Soulblight release still seems... incomplete to me. But, no army is ever 'complete' under GW, else they'd never have anything else to release for it, and they make money by adding new stuff, so we'll see what happens when it's the vampire's turn in the limelight.
Interesting note from leaks is soulblights seems to have been may release from get-go. Points are marked to may 2021. So gw managed to shufle things around enough to get these out on intended montq
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Is Nagash in the battle tome or will he now only be able as an option in the Ossiarch book if this one is basically replacing Legions of Nagash?
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Is Nagash in the battle tome or will he now only be able as an option in the Ossiarch book if this one is basically replacing Legions of Nagash?
He's in there but he's 975pts.
Ok. A bit of a price hike but at least he’s there! Have they also kept some of the nighthaunt units LoN had like the spirit hosts and hexwraiths or are they gone and just in the nighthaunt book
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Is Nagash in the battle tome or will he now only be able as an option in the Ossiarch book if this one is basically replacing Legions of Nagash?
He's in there but he's 975pts.
Ok. A bit of a price hike but at least he’s there! Have they also kept some of the nighthaunt units LoN had like the spirit hosts and hexwraiths or are they gone and just in the nighthaunt book
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Is Nagash in the battle tome or will he now only be able as an option in the Ossiarch book if this one is basically replacing Legions of Nagash?
He's in there but he's 975pts.
Says something about spellcasting in next edition methinks...
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Is Nagash in the battle tome or will he now only be able as an option in the Ossiarch book if this one is basically replacing Legions of Nagash?
He's in there but he's 975pts.
Ok. A bit of a price hike but at least he’s there! Have they also kept some of the nighthaunt units LoN had like the spirit hosts and hexwraiths or are they gone and just in the nighthaunt book
Zero NH now. You can use them as allies though.
Thanks for the info. Have loads of WHFB Vampire Counts models that I use for AoS in a Legions army and was only going to get the Soulblight book and the new blood knights, fell bats and maybe some of the new characters but my main reason for the army is Nagash so if he wasn’t in there then I’d sell it all and get the Bonereapers.
Matcap wrote: Weird question: are the previewed Lady Anika and the Ratprince in the book? If not we might see cursed city expansions after all.
Yes both are in the book but aren’t really worth taking. They are cheap filler leaders but there’s better options for a few more points. Neither has the Hunger ability unlike other Vampires and neither has any magic again all other Vampires have magic. EDIT Annika has an ability that is a slightly better version of the hunger so ignore that.
Kritza can respawn if killed on a roll of 4+ and some have interpreted the rule as written to mean you can multiply Kritza each time he dies so you could end up with 16 of him on the table I think that’s a bit of a stretch but I can see how the rule is interpreted that way it needs an FAQ. They are both Vyrkos Dynasty
The Deathstench Drove battalion with a Nercomancer seems to be the way to go - 2 Corpse Carts, 2 Dire Wolves, 2 Zombies. The Zombies get lots of buffs from the battalion, corpse cart and Necromancer. SBGL lists will probably be zombie heavy.
Yeah, despite being new and very good looking, Lady Anika and Ratprince have probably the most boring rules. And despite being from "Vyrkos Dynasty" which gives re-rolls to casting neither are wizards. They even have identical profiles!
Only good thing is the looks, they are relatively cheap and they do interact with second part of Vyrkos Dynasty.
Given how bad they are, ruleswise, I wonder if they were planned for Cursed City originally. Shame we don't have a photo of them with black bases to confirm it. (Quest models have black bases, instead of the usual brown.)
GaroRobe wrote: Given how bad they are, ruleswise, I wonder if they were planned for Cursed City originally. Shame we don't have a photo of them with black bases to confirm it. (Quest models have black bases, instead of the usual brown.)
I suspect that this has been a case. And background for Kritza, the Rat Prince, would make a good "hero". Disgraced noble, forced to eat rats and turned into a monster only to comeback to claim what he is owned.
What an horrible disgrace of a book. Instead of making a "build your own vampire adventures" the vampires are the most boring part of the book, all the skeletal units are boring as feth, and you'll end up with 1 or two lists about a wombo combo of monster smash or zombie hordes.
I'm really dissapointed with both this book and the slaanesh one. Back in the day I was excited to see new AoS rules, they were always so imaginative. But right now, they keep pumping low effort rulebooks after low effort. Ironic that the 40k team puts now more care into making their armies play how they should with the great deathguard, drukhari (even if its OP with the book of rust and point costs), and with great crusade rules.
Galas wrote: What an horrible disgrace of a book. Instead of making a "build your own vampire adventures" the vampires are the most boring part of the book, all the skeletal units are boring as feth, and you'll end up with 1 or two lists about a wombo combo of monster smash or zombie hordes.
I'm really dissapointed with both this book and the slaanesh one. Back in the day I was excited to see new AoS rules, they were always so imaginative. But right now, they keep pumping low effort rulebooks after low effort. Ironic that the 40k team puts now more care into making their armies play how they should with the great deathguard, drukhari (even if its OP with the book of rust and point costs), and with great crusade rules.
The last Slaanesh book was mostly "take 3 keepers, summon more keepers".
You could do other things but the whole book was basically weighted heavily toward multiwound leaders because of the way depravity and summoning worked.
The current one is far more engaging in that there's a more even spread and whilst there are some questions over some of the higher prices, they do seem to have worked hard to make the army work whilst including summoning rather than making it work just for summoning. There's far more scope for a mortal army; or a demon one or a mix or a seeker heavy army or you can rock up with keepers etc.... Personally I find that FAR more exciting than having super powered keepers summoning more keepers as the only option.
From the sounds of it you almost sound like the whole "build your own vampire adventures" is more of an RPG thing than a wargame thing. Or rather something that you build a story around yourself for a campaign rather than something that you have as an intrinsic value within a wargame army.
I think sometimes our desire to have "funky" rules can mean that we end up with books and games that are funky, but also so heavily weighted toward it that its actually not all that much fun because the "funky" is the only working part. Making it into a one trick pony affair. I'd rather "bland" armies that have themes and ideas and freedom to construct various forces. If I want stories I go to the lore or I make my own in a campaign setting and such rather than wanting that to be an intrinsic part of having to make the book work.
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Is Nagash in the battle tome or will he now only be able as an option in the Ossiarch book if this one is basically replacing Legions of Nagash?
He's in there but he's 975pts.
What about the Mortis Engine?
That's always felt like it should have actually been in the NH book, and it was included in Mortal Realms magazine as a NH model, but they can't actually take it currently.
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Is Nagash in the battle tome or will he now only be able as an option in the Ossiarch book if this one is basically replacing Legions of Nagash?
He's in there but he's 975pts.
What about the Mortis Engine?
That's always felt like it should have actually been in the NH book, and it was included in Mortal Realms magazine as a NH model, but they can't actually take it currently.
Aye, it's in there as well, which, as a NH player, disappoints me somewhat. Not that it's really needed in NH but still, it's a nice model.
Is the skeleton knight (wight king/knight guy?) up for pre-order this weekend? I didn't see it mentioned in the WH community article or at all recently.
I guess since the terrain and endless spells are both produced in China they may have been axed due to shipping concerns (or more likely low sales for faction terrain and endless spells in general).
Cronch wrote: Not all factions get either or both of those.
Which second edition battletomes did not receive either or both of these?
Kharadron Overlords got neither.
Ogre Mawtribes did not get endless spells but did get terrain.
Slaves to Darkness did not get terrain.
Cities of Sigmar got neither.
Orruk Warclans got neither.
Sons of Behemat got neither.
Cronch wrote: Not all factions get either or both of those.
Which second edition battletomes did not receive either or both of these?
Kharadron Overlords got neither.
Ogre Mawtribes did not get endless spells but did get terrain.
Slaves to Darkness did not get terrain.
Cities of Sigmar got neither.
Orruk Warclans got neither.
Sons of Behemat got neither.
Off the top of my head.
Kharadrons, Sons of Behemat - No Wizards for Endless Spells
Cities of Sigmar - Has the 'Amplified Sorceries' battle trait which affects Endless Spells
So the only oddity on Endless Spells is the Orruk Warclans (no big green glowy foot, etc.).
As for Faction Terrain, it looks like the People of Sigmar don't bring their terrain with them (no terrain for Sttormcasts either) and Destruction isn't big into building anyway. For Kharadron, one could consider their Skyvessels taking the place of their Faction Terrain.
So for Soulblight I would have expected at least a few Endless Spells (e,g,, a bat-themed one to take the place of bat swarms in their battletome).
Note that the Nurgle battletome hasn't been updated. It is still a first edition battletome, coming out about five months before second edition.
So why don't Ogors have endless spells, when 3/4th of their characters are wizards? and sorry but 'battle trait" does not equal a boxed set of plastic models. As for destruction not being big on building...both Ogors and Gits got terrain.
There is NO rhyme or reason beyond maybe sales expectations.
Cronch wrote: So why don't Ogors have endless spells, when 3/4th of their characters are wizards? and sorry but 'battle trait" does not equal a boxed set of plastic models. As for destruction not being big on building...both Ogors and Gits got terrain.
There is NO rhyme or reason beyond maybe sales expectations.
Maybe because the Lore of Gutmagic or the Lore of the Sun-eater isn't suited for Endless Spells? Maybe the Great Maw ate all their Endless Spells?
I'm not quite sure why there are outliers such as DoK not having a terrain, but they also spent most of second edition without Endless Spells as well.
Meanwhile Orruks and Cities of Sigmar both felt like 2.0 rescue/patch battletomes and I think part of that is simply that one (Orruks) have developed scheduled later (3.0 ) and Cities was literally a rescue battletome and I think also has development set later.
Broadly speaking terrain and Endless Spells are things GW has made almost universal features. If armies don't have them now, it might just be that GW hasn't got anything for them "yet"
Zombies have a lot of separate heads so there's a bit more variation there and the gravestones are totally separate (and a waste of valuable sprue space!) but the bodies are very limited.
Cronch wrote: So why don't Ogors have endless spells, when 3/4th of their characters are wizards? and sorry but 'battle trait" does not equal a boxed set of plastic models. As for destruction not being big on building...both Ogors and Gits got terrain.
There is NO rhyme or reason beyond maybe sales expectations.
Maybe because the Lore of Gutmagic or the Lore of the Sun-eater isn't suited for Endless Spells?
You gotta be kidding? Summoning a tiny version of the Great Maw to eat their enemies, or a living swarm of butcher’s cleavers to gather ingredients, and maybe a big ball of solar fire that burns and blinds people… they practically write themselves. And if Khorne can get endless prayers there’s no reason the Everwinter priests can’t have a giant summoned snowball that gets bigger and more dangerous as it rolls around, either.
Cronch wrote: So why don't Ogors have endless spells, when 3/4th of their characters are wizards? and sorry but 'battle trait" does not equal a boxed set of plastic models. As for destruction not being big on building...both Ogors and Gits got terrain.
There is NO rhyme or reason beyond maybe sales expectations.
Maybe because the Lore of Gutmagic or the Lore of the Sun-eater isn't suited for Endless Spells? Maybe the Great Maw ate all their Endless Spells?
It doesn't matter: Khorne and Fyreslayers don't have wizards, but have priests, and as such they both goth "Endless Prayers". A mini Maw was indeed a missed opportunity.
I do like the skeletons. Would be nice just as a generic baddies RPG kit.
Zombies and Blood Knights I'm not as sold on. Not bad, but not excited either.
Bats are the monopose-stuck-on-terrain models that I expected them to be. Neat for a specific diorama, but not much else.
We've been tricked, backstabbed and quite possibly, bamboozled:
- We already have enough options with the new skellies and zombies. They are really cold (heh), and you always have a knife at hand if you really want them to look different.
- The real problem is this: Blood Knights only have 5 torso choices. To add salt to the injury: I didn't got my choice to make a Nightmare with a flesh covered head.
Cronch wrote: So why don't Ogors have endless spells, when 3/4th of their characters are wizards? and sorry but 'battle trait" does not equal a boxed set of plastic models. As for destruction not being big on building...both Ogors and Gits got terrain.
There is NO rhyme or reason beyond maybe sales expectations.
Maybe because the Lore of Gutmagic or the Lore of the Sun-eater isn't suited for Endless Spells?
You gotta be kidding? Summoning a tiny version of the Great Maw to eat their enemies, or a living swarm of butcher’s cleavers to gather ingredients, and maybe a big ball of solar fire that burns and blinds people… they practically write themselves. And if Khorne can get endless prayers there’s no reason the Everwinter priests can’t have a giant summoned snowball that gets bigger and more dangerous as it rolls around, either.
From page 17 of Malign Sorcery:
Regardless of how it had arrived in the Mortal Realms, living magic takes many forms, some of which are strongly connected to a particular realmsphere or hue of magic... Others, like the Aethervoid Pendulum, are not as closely tied to a specific realm – although many of these still bear some connection to the energies of death.
So again it's easy to find reasons why forces who don't use a traditional magic may not have Endless Spells which are generally based on the nature of the Realms, just like it's easy to see how the Everwinter which is eternally pursuing the Beastclaw Raiders may not grant them Endless Prayers.
Overread wrote: Most factions have Endless Spells and Terrain.
I'm not quite sure why there are outliers such as DoK not having a terrain, but they also spent most of second edition without Endless Spells as well.
Meanwhile Orruks and Cities of Sigmar both felt like 2.0 rescue/patch battletomes and I think part of that is simply that one (Orruks) have developed scheduled later (3.0 ) and Cities was literally a rescue battletome and I think also has development set later.
Broadly speaking terrain and Endless Spells are things GW has made almost universal features. If armies don't have them now, it might just be that GW hasn't got anything for them "yet"
Objectively untrue; 24 Tomes, 10 of which have both endless spells and terrain, 9 of which have one but not the other, 5 of which have neither. There are also plenty of recent battletomes which did not receive them, refuting the notion of a development standard as well. And how exactly is Cities of Sigmar literally a rescue battletome? What does that even mean?
Irbis wrote: So, why would you buy bat hairdo Vampire Lord when you have four of them in Direchasm box for just a tiny bit more?
Hilariously enough, they are also more WYSIWYG because Vampire Lord rules don't mention shield the standalone model has...
Edit: Doubly more WYSIWYG because Vampire Lord is supposed to have blades, which Direchasm dudes have, standalone has a mace
To be honest, the shields appear to have dropped altogether and just been incorporated into the saves. - same as the Wight King now. I suppose this at least lets you continue to use things like Krell since the Black Axe has just vanished now as an option :(
I seriously appreciate the idea of weapon profiles being the same regardless of equipment. It's nice, it's simple and it means that you can use older minis without hassle.
I am more surprised that skeletons hit on +3. That is actually impressive (but also possible typo).
But anyway, one thing that I noted was that these new vampires (vangorian, blood knights, lord with bad hair) have quite simple connections with torso so it should be relatively simple to swap parts (or some parts).
Got around to actually checking the new warscrolls, hot dam some details were omitted from what people have previously told me.
Zombies do MWs on 6s to hit (wtf?), can pile-in from 6" away, and add a new model on a 2+ for each one slain (which can take them above the starting amount). Holy crap are they powerful.
Skeletons haven't made it out badly either; they lost size-scaling but now when they are picked to attack they roll a dice for every model lost earlier in the phase and get it back on a 4+. This is very powerful as well, and makes them a hard counter to ASF-style armies or just enemy offense in general. An extremely useful tool in the army's arsenal.
Digging the vampires not getting needless complexity/diversity. The shared weapon profile for their weapons is a great move in my eyes; mechanically there is no need for the average damage of their hand weapon profile to be different between models so keeping it consistent across them makes gameplay easier on a practical level. Also liking the continued trend of shields simply being incorporated into the save characteristic.
Cronch wrote: So why don't Ogors have endless spells, when 3/4th of their characters are wizards? and sorry but 'battle trait" does not equal a boxed set of plastic models. As for destruction not being big on building...both Ogors and Gits got terrain.
There is NO rhyme or reason beyond maybe sales expectations.
Maybe because the Lore of Gutmagic or the Lore of the Sun-eater isn't suited for Endless Spells?
You gotta be kidding? Summoning a tiny version of the Great Maw to eat their enemies, or a living swarm of butcher’s cleavers to gather ingredients, and maybe a big ball of solar fire that burns and blinds people… they practically write themselves. And if Khorne can get endless prayers there’s no reason the Everwinter priests can’t have a giant summoned snowball that gets bigger and more dangerous as it rolls around, either.
Cronch wrote: So why don't Ogors have endless spells, when 3/4th of their characters are wizards? and sorry but 'battle trait" does not equal a boxed set of plastic models. As for destruction not being big on building...both Ogors and Gits got terrain.
There is NO rhyme or reason beyond maybe sales expectations.
Maybe because the Lore of Gutmagic or the Lore of the Sun-eater isn't suited for Endless Spells? Maybe the Great Maw ate all their Endless Spells?
It doesn't matter: Khorne and Fyreslayers don't have wizards, but have priests, and as such they both goth "Endless Prayers". A mini Maw was indeed a missed opportunity.
The mini maw already exists, kind of, in the Malign Sorcery box. One of them is basically a giant set of fangs flying around. On the topic even if an army doesn't have have endless spells, or an equivalent, and unique terrain I feel that they should. Or if they can't have unique endless spells at least the ability to use enhanced versions of the basic ones like CoS or Seraphon.
Wow. Bat hair vampire isn't even posed for his tactical rock. They just took him off the even ground he was sculpted for, slapped him on a slanted rock and called it a day.
Geifer wrote: Wow. Bat hair vampire isn't even posed for his tactical rock. They just took him off the even ground he was sculpted for, slapped him on a slanted rock and called it a day.
Yeah it's posed to be standing straight up and the tactical rock looks like an after thought at least only one leg is attached to the rock so it's easy to remove it. The Blood Knights have lots of spare right sword arms and heads that should work on the lord.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'd be down for every faction getting terrain if it was an option rather than mandatory.
Technically it is an option. It's just an option you'd be stupid not to take.
Also, is it just me or are Sigmar battletomes...pretty garbage lately? DoK was a dumpster fire of removed options and unnecessary nerfs, Slaanesh as far as I can tell was the same but worse, this book is a random hodgepodge of 3/4ths legion of Nagash and 1/4th utterly baffling design decisions. Lumineth was boring and straightforward while also being massively powerful. Seraphon, which seems to be the best designed of the recent books, still ended up with dreadful internal balance.
Did they fire the guys that did all the 2018-2019 battletomes and bring back the 7th Ed 40k team or what?
Geifer wrote: Wow. Bat hair vampire isn't even posed for his tactical rock. They just took him off the even ground he was sculpted for, slapped him on a slanted rock and called it a day.
That should at least make it easier to repose him on flat ground, right?
Cronch wrote: So why don't Ogors have endless spells, when 3/4th of their characters are wizards? and sorry but 'battle trait" does not equal a boxed set of plastic models. As for destruction not being big on building...both Ogors and Gits got terrain.
There is NO rhyme or reason beyond maybe sales expectations.
Maybe because the Lore of Gutmagic or the Lore of the Sun-eater isn't suited for Endless Spells?
You gotta be kidding? Summoning a tiny version of the Great Maw to eat their enemies, or a living swarm of butcher’s cleavers to gather ingredients, and maybe a big ball of solar fire that burns and blinds people… they practically write themselves. And if Khorne can get endless prayers there’s no reason the Everwinter priests can’t have a giant summoned snowball that gets bigger and more dangerous as it rolls around, either.
From page 17 of Malign Sorcery:
Regardless of how it had arrived in the Mortal Realms, living magic takes many forms, some of which are strongly connected to a particular realmsphere or hue of magic... Others, like the Aethervoid Pendulum, are not as closely tied to a specific realm – although many of these still bear some connection to the energies of death.
So again it's easy to find reasons why forces who don't use a traditional magic may not have Endless Spells which are generally based on the nature of the Realms, just like it's easy to see how the Everwinter which is eternally pursuing the Beastclaw Raiders may not grant them Endless Prayers.
Or it could. Fun fact, if the writers of the game want to give your faction endless spells, they will find a way. Khorne got them ffs. You can write into the lore whatever you want to justify it, it's how creative process works. I could give magic to dispossessed right now, and the universe would not eject me into the netherrealm for breaking a law of physics.
The terrain and endless spells are done by a small separate team, Ray Dranfield and co. it's possible that they have been working on stuff for 3rd edition and just didn't have the time or resources to do SBGL stuff for now (gotta save something for the updated battletome in 6 months )
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'd be down for every faction getting terrain if it was an option rather than mandatory.
Technically it is an option. It's just an option you'd be stupid not to take.
Also, is it just me or are Sigmar battletomes...pretty garbage lately? DoK was a dumpster fire of removed options and unnecessary nerfs, Slaanesh as far as I can tell was the same but worse, this book is a random hodgepodge of 3/4ths legion of Nagash and 1/4th utterly baffling design decisions. Lumineth was boring and straightforward while also being massively powerful. Seraphon, which seems to be the best designed of the recent books, still ended up with dreadful internal balance.
Did they fire the guys that did all the 2018-2019 battletomes and bring back the 7th Ed 40k team or what?
Have you actually played the DoK book? Because it doesn't sound like you have.
The last two tomes appear to be taking out auto-take army compositions and working toward flatter internal battletome balance.
That is DoK now have options outside of just taking lots and lots of witch aelves; Slaanesh outside of taking lots and lots of leaders (mostly keepers).
Sure this can seem more bland because there's no big show-stopping army composition choice. However in reality its far more exciting because now you've a lot more real choices and options and variety when building the army up.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'd be down for every faction getting terrain if it was an option rather than mandatory.
Technically it is an option. It's just an option you'd be stupid not to take.
Also, is it just me or are Sigmar battletomes...pretty garbage lately? DoK was a dumpster fire of removed options and unnecessary nerfs, Slaanesh as far as I can tell was the same but worse, this book is a random hodgepodge of 3/4ths legion of Nagash and 1/4th utterly baffling design decisions. Lumineth was boring and straightforward while also being massively powerful. Seraphon, which seems to be the best designed of the recent books, still ended up with dreadful internal balance.
Did they fire the guys that did all the 2018-2019 battletomes and bring back the 7th Ed 40k team or what?
Have you actually played the DoK book? Because it doesn't sound like you have.
Yes, significant nerfs to all melee options and forced terrible relic choices in exchange for a few very paltry points drops. Mindrazor getting better the one out every 8 games you'll actually get to cast it without it being unbound (even using Morathi) is apparently somehow supposed to balance out functionally removing witch brew. Hagg Narr and Kellebron remain the only temples worth taking (despite Hagg Narr being nerfed and Kellebron being even more gimmicky than it used to be.) except now there are a couple of trap temples people are going to spend the lifespan of the book trying to make work because they seem okay on paper(but...but...muh -1 rend on the charge...:( ). Oh, and priests can only use 1 prayer post FAQ(massive nerf to Cauldrons especially).
Even just changing all the aura abilities to wholly within was a significant(if understandable/necessary) nerf to both speed and flexibility.
Morathi+Bloodstalkers was the most common list before the book because it was arguably OP. Now it's because all the melee units are excessively mediocre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: The last two tomes appear to be taking out auto-take army compositions and working toward flatter internal battletome balance.
That is DoK now have options outside of just taking lots and lots of witch aelves; Slaanesh outside of taking lots and lots of leaders (mostly keepers).
Sure this can seem more bland because there's no big show-stopping army composition choice. However in reality its far more exciting because now you've a lot more real choices and options and variety when building the army up.
This has been trotted out since the book came out and it's always been wrong.
DoK always had more options than just taking witch aelves. SoS and Blood Sisters were both excellent options, if less 'set it and forget it' than witch aelves.
Now NONE of those units are options anymore. You take blood stalkers and Morathi or you accept that you're mostly just there for funsies.
DaveC wrote: Yeah it's posed to be standing straight up and the tactical rock looks like an after thought at least only one leg is attached to the rock so it's easy to remove it.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: That should at least make it easier to repose him on flat ground, right?
My problem with new army battletomes is that AoS was the wacky game without balance that I played because it was fun, compared to 40k.
Where are my Kharadron shooting at terrain and moving to it with their grapel hooks? Where are my bloodpriest becoming better at chanting prayers to khorne after killing stuff in meele? Wheres my chaos lord unleashing the power of his demonic spear and ascending to demon prince? When I did that last one in a 2vs2 games it became one of the most memorable moments of all my AoS gaming life for me.
They are streamlining and streamlining the game, removing the more esoteric and wacky stuff to put in place some form of standarization that at the end of the day it just makes things more similar and boring. Why have a ton of vampire characters for half of them to be copypastes without personality? Why remove most of the options in the game and just change them for 6 to hit do 1 MW?
And for what? What have we gained with the change? Balance is at a worst. The state of the game is horrible with magic and shooting completely dominating it. Back in the day the balance in AoS was nearly just as terrible but at least the game was fun. Is like people wants AoS to become a more balanced game without accepting that deeper mechanics are needed to make enyojable a more balanced game. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
EDIT: And I'm surely not defending the old slaanesh battletome. I'm talking about this trend with books like new slaanesh, this book, the "new" khorne book, etc...
The skellies sprues look great but zombies still don't do it for me.
The big vampires scale sure is as big as I thought they would be, just one sprue though?
Fellbats are nice but I sculpted one recently so I think I'm covered there, then again I blew the money on art supplies already so will have to wait. XD
The most baffling thing to me about the skellies, is that clearly the sprues should provide some decent variety, with the legs, torsos, heads and both arms being separate and at least somewhat interchange-able, and yet GW seems to have been dedicated to making a bunch of clones with diffrent weapons for their promotional photos.
Might just be a lag with the GW US site (or even my PC). It only shows Necromunda pre-orders. I even tried searching Vampire and only got the one on Zombie Dragon.
KidCthulhu wrote: Might just be a lag with the GW US site (or even my PC). It only shows Necromunda pre-orders. I even tried searching Vampire and only got the one on Zombie Dragon.
People have been looking at the New Zealand webstore, because of the way time zones work.
Most everyone else will see them in about 2 hours, if you don't want to change your flag and feel bad about the absurd prices at the bottom of the world.
DarkStarSabre wrote: I seriously appreciate the idea of weapon profiles being the same regardless of equipment. It's nice, it's simple and it means that you can use older minis without hassle.
I don't mind the same profile, but the new sheet says 'blades' only. So, technically, every vampire with mace is illegal. Honestly, if they want it to just be one option, they should do what 40K 5th edition did and just say 'Lord's weapon' or 'Melee attack' or something...
DarkStarSabre wrote: I seriously appreciate the idea of weapon profiles being the same regardless of equipment. It's nice, it's simple and it means that you can use older minis without hassle.
I don't mind the same profile, but the new sheet says 'blades' only. So, technically, every vampire with mace is illegal. Honestly, if they want it to just be one option, they should do what 40K 5th edition did and just say 'Lord's weapon' or 'Melee attack' or something...
I mean, technically, that mace has blades on it...
Thanks for the links, Wha-Mu-077. Those are some damn nice skellies. I guess GW's "paint five models and photoshop them to make ten models in the ads" really made them look a lot less customizable than they really are.
Yeah, the lack of variety with the blood knights is really a deal-breaker for me. I'm also not thrilled with the dancing poses on the skeletons, though I already have plenty of skeletons anyway. I guess after waiting this long for a Vampire Counts army to translate over to Age of Sigmar, I'm pretty disappointed in the new stuff.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'd rather additional head/weapon options on a unit than torsos myself. I don't really notice duplicate torsos in a unit.
Honestly, this above. Besides, even when Warhammer Battle was still around, duplicate torsos in a unit were kinda the exception rather than the rule.
So when people are complaining about it now for Blood Knights, I find it weird...though I think it's certainly linked to the fact that one of the torsos is female and they have to use it.
CMLR wrote: I'm still not okay with having only 5 torsos
How many torsos you need for five models?
Six or seven is a sweet spot, more considering that one of the torsos has plated boob armor.
Kabalite warriors have multiple gender locked chest pieces options and they are older kit: yes, they are infantry, but at least you can make two squads fully made out of male and female space dark elves.
If they really wanted to go for the route of diverse Blood Knights, they could have deleted the metal bra and go for regular chest armor or add two so you can have more than one single.
If we are talking about modern AoS cavalry, this doesn't happen with Dawnriders, who all have the same armour and look fine, and are not posing with open arms like the Bloody Knights are.
I'm curious, though. How many kits are out there - even on the alternate market - that give really duplicate torsos in modular plastic kits for free ? Like, in comparison to all the kits on the market ?
Not sure they were that many some people would expect it should happen here.
Why bringing it here for the Blood Knights specifically ? It's not like having the same bland torso would have made it better either. Or 7, for that matter - you would still have duplicates anyway. And it's not like the old Empire Knights plastic kit wasn't forcing you to use the same torso designs over and over again (well, I guess I was used to remove the "Sigmar" writing on those for my Knights of the White Wolf with a modeling knife, in those days).
I feel like the halberds should have more range than a sword. I guess it's cool that you can mix the units together and it doesn't affect the weapon profile.
Funny how the champion from this set, whose just a nobody, has a much nicer and fancier halberd than the Watchkeeper from Cursed City. Not that I'm complaining; one lesson reason to pick him up off ebay.
Sarouan wrote: I'm curious, though. How many kits are out there - even on the alternate market - that give really duplicate torsos in modular plastic kits for free ? Like, in comparison to all the kits on the market ?
They're not giving them to you for free. You're paying for the kit. Given GW pricing, they really should come with more build options in general.
For just shy of forty quid a box; more than five!
Would you be fine with more torso options if they remained genderlocked? So 4 male bodies, 1 female, and 7 torsos, 5 male and 2 female?
They're not giving them to you for free. You're paying for the kit. Given GW pricing, they really should come with more build options in general.
That's a common mistake. You're always paying for the actual kit, not what it could have been. When you ask for more that it has, you're asking for additionnal content - or content that wasn't meant to be the kit itself.
Why would you assume they would sell it the same price if they added more torsos inside, or additionnal horse head with flesh on it for those who don't like horse skulls ?
I mean, they could also have made Blood Knights riding undead donkeys or giant rabbits, but strangely, they're not selling it either in the kit.
Sure, you can always ask for something that's not what GW came in, but seriously ? It's not a Kickstarter here. And even so, customers deciding on kit design isn't always the best solution ever, because there will always be a customer that will have a different idea about how it should have been for him and not the others.
Would you be fine with more torso options if they remained genderlocked? So 4 male bodies, 1 female, and 7 torsos, 5 male and 2 female?
At this point, could really go the full way with 5 male and 5 females. With enough heads for both, of course. Why always make more males than females, after all ?
I don't think the "gender locked" is really the point here, anyway.
Sure. As long as there are sufficient heads to go with them.
Or did you expect me to reply with 'REEEE I h8 the FemOids!'?
Funnily enough, I bet that if the kit came with full male torsos so that you can only build a unit of 5 male Blood Knights, we wouldn't have that remark here on torsos specifically for them.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I mean, technically, that mace has blades on it...
That is common misconception, but the flanged maces had very thick, blunt prongs. I was surprised holding one, it's more like four way hammer than something akin to crossed axe
OK, shutting up about the topic now, just still finding rules writer not looking at the new models really silly...
I don't know but the blood knights horses take a chunk of the sprue so even if its 5 it's actually like 5 sized monster models. One extra torso or heads is always nice on these kits, to give some variation to 10 minis etc. but like I said those horses are big pieces of kit that takes so much space on the sprue... shame legs attached though taht sucks.
Sarouan wrote: I'm curious, though. How many kits are out there - even on the alternate market - that give really duplicate torsos in modular plastic kits for free ? Like, in comparison to all the kits on the market ?
Not sure they were that many some people would expect it should happen here.
Why bringing it here for the Blood Knights specifically ? It's not like having the same bland torso would have made it better either. Or 7, for that matter - you would still have duplicates anyway. And it's not like the old Empire Knights plastic kit wasn't forcing you to use the same torso designs over and over again (well, I guess I was used to remove the "Sigmar" writing on those for my Knights of the White Wolf with a modeling knife, in those days).
The problem here was fitting one "female" torso with a metal bra; if you look at the current Start Collecting! StD and Khagra's Ravagers, they only need really cool head sculpts to show you the female miniatures, similar to Lumineth. Dark Eldar can get away with their armor because they are sci-fi bodysuits.
Mounted Evocators have one single female, but they come in units of three: pretty much every other heavy or elite cavalry has their mounts, shields and heads of the riders as the focus point of the models, however, Blood Knights and Evocators riders, alongside their mounts, are the combined focus, given how elaborated their armours are, and how thin/small their weapons are.
If I want to take a whole brotherhood of Blood Knights, I can't with a single box without clipping off boob plate; if I want a sisterhood, I will need green stuff and sanding off chests, but I'll won't have enough heads, I would at least liked the option of having the option of having two boob plates.
I'd like to point out that Joan of Arc never used boob plate armour, and I bet you that no woman is willing to use a metal bra under regular circumstances.
Sure. As long as there are sufficient heads to go with them.
Or did you expect me to reply with 'REEEE I h8 the FemOids!'?
Funnily enough, I bet that if the kit came with full male torsos so that you can only build a unit of 5 male Blood Knights, we wouldn't have that remark here on torsos specifically for them.
In that case they wouldn't have been "male torsos", just "torsos", and it would have still been nice to have other adornments for the chest armour.
Well if it only came with "male" torsos then you could just slap a female head on each of them and say the armour is just, quite realistically, bulky and covering up their boobs.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Well if it only came with "male" torsos then you could just slap a female head on each of them and say the armour is just, quite realistically, bulky and covering up their boobs.
Literally the same as Chaso Knights, Warriors and Khagra herself from her Underworls warband.
Cronch wrote: Would you be fine with more torso options if they remained genderlocked? So 4 male bodies, 1 female, and 7 torsos, 5 male and 2 female?
Sure. As long as there are sufficient heads to go with them.
Or did you expect me to reply with 'REEEE I h8 the FemOids!'?
I will be honest, after the comments about the new stormcast and female ogres in the Wargames Atlantic threat, I fully expected something like that might be the case (not because I have something against you personally, merely because a few weird individuals were quite vocal)
In that case they wouldn't have been "male torsos", just "torsos", and it would have still been nice to have other adornments for the chest armour.
Well, why even include the torsos? The platonic idea of a rider should suffice.
If I was getting a cavalry mini from another company for $12 it wouldn't be a nice and wouldn't come with as many options. Certainly not extra torsos. It seems a strange complaint to me. Like, why lose head/weapon options for extra torsos? Why add extra torsos over, say, alternate steed heads or different shields? Either would add far more visual diversity.
Theres always something that limits how mani miniatures you can do. In most cases, thats the bodies. I don't remember that many boxes that come with more torsos or legs than the exactly ones you need to make the numbered ammount of miniatures they are selling you.
Heads, arms, and other little touches, is from where real variety comes.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Well if it only came with "male" torsos then you could just slap a female head on each of them and say the armour is just, quite realistically, bulky and covering up their boobs.
In that case they wouldn't have been "male torsos", just "torsos", and it would have still been nice to have other adornments for the chest armour.
Well, why even include the torsos? The platonic idea of a rider should suffice.
I can't find the sarcasm anywhere.
Why are they blood knight if they are vampire knights and not knights made of actual blood?
NinthMusketeer wrote: If I was getting a cavalry mini from another company for $12 it wouldn't be a nice and wouldn't come with as many options. Certainly not extra torsos. It seems a strange complaint to me. Like, why lose head/weapon options for extra torsos? Why add extra torsos over, say, alternate steed heads or different shields? Either would add far more visual diversity.
Because now we are forced to have four blokes and one gal in a single unit. What if I wanted to have a ratio of 3:2 instead? the diversity that one single metal bra brought to the table now is forcing people to buy more boxed, clip off boobies, or dig in chests and add boobies. Again, this does not happen with Chaos Knights and Warriors because you only need to slap a head on them, not plated boobs.
One single diversity piece caused a diversity paradox for people who wanted diversity on their plastic soldiers kit.
No it didn't. It's only a problem if you reaally want all your models to be men for some reason. Because sorry but your argument of "well, if all the pieces are male, then they're all unisex" sounds like something from an MRA rally.
It would be nice if they included enough torso bits to make a fully female OR fully male unit. Then the people who think female vampire knights break muh immersion have what they want, and I can make an all female Lahmian unit or something.
Cronch wrote: No it didn't. It's only a problem if you reaally want all your models to be men for some reason. Because sorry but your argument of "well, if all the pieces are male, then they're all unisex" sounds like something from an MRA rally.
OR women. Underneath the chest we all have the same torax; women ribs are not shaped in the form of their breasts.
Joan of Arc DIDN'T used boob armor.
ANY, heavy duty protection gear, is "unisex" gear: go see if the female american football teams have protection tailored specifically for all of her cup sizes.
Do you even know what a MRA rally really is? Because I know and I don't enjoy political attacks in my hobby about how I don't like that I can only have one girl in my toy soldiers army.
ph34r wrote: It would be nice if they included enough torso bits to make a fully female OR fully male unit. Then the people who think female vampire knights break muh immersion have what they want, and I can make an all female Lahmian unit or something.
Yeah, I'd like that: I like having 3 male heads, 3 female heads and a bund of helmeted heads, but then again, one single metal bra among four dudes is not my liking.
Cronch wrote: No it didn't. It's only a problem if you reaally want all your models to be men for some reason. Because sorry but your argument of "well, if all the pieces are male, then they're all unisex" sounds like something from an MRA rally.
But that's how it works for Chaos Warriors. Technically, with the fact Khagra exists, all unnamed Chaos Warriors could be women for all we know.
See, it'd be right, except aside from chaos warriors, GW made it very clear that female models look quite different to their male counterparts. Thus the convention of the game for all armies BUT one instance is that female armor is distinguishable female.
As blood dragons are not chaos warriors, I see no reason why GW would drop the convention they established some 30 years ago.
Cronch wrote: See, it'd be right, except aside from chaos warriors, GW made it very clear that female models look quite different to their male counterparts. Thus the convention of the game for all armies BUT one instance is that female armor is distinguishable female.
As blood dragons are not chaos warriors, I see no reason why GW would drop the convention they established some 30 years ago.
What?
I'd like to see where in the old books does it say "female warriors of all around the globe, except those alligned with the damned forces of Chaos, are know for go to battle clad in confortable battle brassieres, capable of deflect the mightiest of blows".
I remind you: no, there is absolutely no problem with having female cavalry, that kicks ass. We don't like that there is only ONE because we got a forced brattle instead of, either not having them and have regular armor, or embrace the brattles and having at least a single optional one to have at least two gals riding along the boys.
And there's also no reason why GW couldn't just include five male and five female heads (and obviously a good few full helmets, with one or two fancier than usual) and go "yeah female and male Blood Knights use the same armour", since they established it is also a possibile alternative to gendered armour with Chaos Warriors.
Because I mean, if you want a full female minimal squad you gotta buy 5 boxes.
now go look at all the female models GW released over the years instead of being obtuse. Even Repanse de Lyon, clad in full armor, has clearly female proportions (including some reaaally thin waist), and so do pretty much all of the rest until the 2019 chaos warriors. This is such an incredible non-issue that I'm sorry but I can't take the complaint seriously otherwise.
(on the other hand I do have to say, that line of thinking does make female marines 100% canon)
I personally would prefer mine to be all male, since it fits much better with the Old World image of them being a knightly order all turned to vampires. And I'd generally prefer all mine to be helmeted, so I'd hope for enough helmeted heads so you have the option to give them all helmets. But if they are going to make some without helmets, it would be nice for some to be obviously feminine so that you can make some noticeably female. I suppose it might be hard to fit 15 total heads per set though, if you need enough that all can be in helmets or all overtly female or all overtly male. Especially considering hoe big they insist on making the hair and the helmets.
Cronch wrote: See, it'd be right, except aside from chaos warriors, GW made it very clear that female models look quite different to their male counterparts. Thus the convention of the game for all armies BUT one instance is that female armor is distinguishable female.
7
This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what was stated during the reveal of the new Cadian upgrade sprue, which contains female heads to go with the generic 'male' bodies.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I personally would prefer mine to be all male, since it fits much better with the Old World image of them being a knightly order all turned to vampires. And I'd generally prefer all mine to be helmeted, so I'd hope for enough helmeted heads so you have the option to give them all helmets. But if they are going to make some without helmets, it would be nice for some to be obviously feminine so that you can make some noticeably female. I suppose it might be hard to fit 15 total heads per set though, if you need enough that all can be in helmets or all overtly female or all overtly male. Especially considering hoe big they insist on making the hair and the helmets.
Meh, the 40k Eradicators kit came with 20 heads at a similar price point to the Blood Knights
Cronch wrote: now go look at all the female models GW released over the years instead of being obtuse. Even Repanse de Lyon, clad in full armor, has clearly female proportions (including some reaaally thin waist), and so do pretty much all of the rest until the 2019 chaos warriors. This is such an incredible non-issue that I'm sorry but I can't take the complaint seriously otherwise.
Repanse in TWWH2 doesn't have a thin waist. And I have to remind you that her latest model is out of print and extremely old. You really don't want to bring in models like that.
Is not serious yet you are paying quite a lot of attention to it.
Cronch wrote: (on the other hand I do have to say, that line of thinking does make female marines 100% canon)
If it wasn't for the fluff, yes, but it is not the same line of thinking.
In that case they wouldn't have been "male torsos", just "torsos", and it would have still been nice to have other adornments for the chest armour.
Well, why even include the torsos? The platonic idea of a rider should suffice.
I can't find the sarcasm anywhere.
Why are they blood knight if they are vampire knights and not knights made of actual blood?
NinthMusketeer wrote: If I was getting a cavalry mini from another company for $12 it wouldn't be a nice and wouldn't come with as many options. Certainly not extra torsos. It seems a strange complaint to me. Like, why lose head/weapon options for extra torsos? Why add extra torsos over, say, alternate steed heads or different shields? Either would add far more visual diversity.
Because now we are forced to have four blokes and one gal in a single unit. What if I wanted to have a ratio of 3:2 instead? the diversity that one single metal bra brought to the table now is forcing people to buy more boxed, clip off boobies, or dig in chests and add boobies. Again, this does not happen with Chaos Knights and Warriors because you only need to slap a head on them, not plated boobs.
One single diversity piece caused a diversity paradox for people who wanted diversity on their plastic soldiers kit.
Ohhh, now I see it. Gotcha.
Also I now want to get some and paint them as made of actual blood.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I mean, it is quite an issue for anyone wanting more than a single token female Blood Knight in their unit.
I didn't thought of tokenism, but I still stand by the side that don't go brattle or fully embrace it. What if I want 5 female riders but I didn't wanted to afford 5 boxes?
JohnnyHell wrote: Some folk just need to wake up and realise it’s 2021.
Thanks for telling us that we are in the current year and understanding what actually happened, John Oliver...
Albino Squirrel wrote: I personally would prefer mine to be all male, since it fits much better with the Old World image of them being a knightly order all turned to vampires. And I'd generally prefer all mine to be helmeted, so I'd hope for enough helmeted heads so you have the option to give them all helmets. But if they are going to make some without helmets, it would be nice for some to be obviously feminine so that you can make some noticeably female. I suppose it might be hard to fit 15 total heads per set though, if you need enough that all can be in helmets or all overtly female or all overtly male. Especially considering hoe big they insist on making the hair and the helmets.
Meh, the 40k Eradicators kit came with 20 heads at a similar price point to the Blood Knights
Yeah, but there's also only three of them for that price. And they're on foot, so they don't need space for 5 horses. So that's a really bad example. Plus, I don't think 40k has the same thing where how important you are in the universe is indicated by how big and ridiculous your helmet is. And space marines don't have the ridiculous hair that GW decided to give to half the vampire models.
But in any case, having as many bare heads as they could fit, some of them that looked male and some that looked female, would be a better choice than having one or two out of the five torsos with boob armor. In fact, given the choice between extra torsos with boobs or extra heads, the heads would be better, because if you use them to mark out champions, then if you have more than one unit you can have the champions look different.
Is not serious yet you are paying quite a lot of attention to it.
Because it is fascinating to see the amazing mental hoops people will jump through to explain why man-vampires are female vampires and thus female vampire sculpts bad.
And I have to remind you that her latest model is out of print and extremely old.
Yes, it was exactly the reason I named her. The only time (to my knowledge) in all of GW's sculpting history in the last 20+ years that GW made female heads for male models in fantasy to show female warriors is for the latest chaos line. Neither before nor after did it happen, and yet this is the one example you latch onto. It's..telling.
Is not serious yet you are paying quite a lot of attention to it.
Because it is fascinating to see the amazing mental hoops people will jump through to explain why man-vampires are female vampires and thus female vampire sculpts bad.
You really are desperate to accuse random people on the internet of sexism, aren't you?
Is not serious yet you are paying quite a lot of attention to it.
Because it is fascinating to see the amazing mental hoops people will jump through to explain why man-vampires are female vampires and thus female vampire sculpts bad.
You really are desperate to accuse random people on the internet of sexism, aren't you?
I have no idea what he's talking about either. People don't like the boob-plate sculpt, that's it. IMO it does look pretty dumb and if I had one it'd be immediately cut & resculpted to not look like that.
Is not serious yet you are paying quite a lot of attention to it.
Because it is fascinating to see the amazing mental hoops people will jump through to explain why man-vampires are female vampires and thus female vampire sculpts bad.
No, nobody said female vampire sculpts = bad.
Neferata = good.
Lauka Vai = good.
Female Blood Knight (Blood Lady?) = good.
Plate boob armor = dumb.
Ever heard about bikini armor in D&D and videogames? a similar thing here: instead of wearing too little protection, why would they wear "protection" detrimental to them?
Men don't go around with perfectly shaped armor for their crotches in fantasy settings (well, sometimes they do, in parody ones).
Is not serious yet you are paying quite a lot of attention to it.
Because it is fascinating to see the amazing mental hoops people will jump through to explain why man-vampires are female vampires and thus female vampire sculpts bad.
You really are desperate to accuse random people on the internet of sexism, aren't you?
In an effort to change the conversation, she is massive. Or maybe the old skeletons are just small. Given the scale of the underworld vampires, I guess it's not too surprising. But any hope of chopping off her upper torso and giving her human legs is dead. But the bat body still has potential
JohnnyHell wrote: Good grief is this nonsense gonna happen every single time a female miniature is released?
Some folk just need to wake up and realise it’s 2021.
The Blood Knights are specifically based on the Old World Blood Knights Knightly Order so it's definitely ingrained in their character to expect male over female vampires with this unit. I think they are great models but would prefer the knights themselves to be a bit chunkier with more physical presence as they are almost like elven knights. GW know what they are at with a good chunk of their AOS range as most of the popular stuff is heavily grounded in the older Fantasy range and they are appealing to a wider market with a good number of these releases. The option should be there to field five torsos without boob plate and in my view, moving away from the Identity politics and championing going on, the real issue is how little options are on the sprues for an expensive enough kit of 5 models (Yes I know the older Blood Knights were more expensive!)
In an effort to change the conversation, she is massive. Or maybe the old skeletons are just small. Given the scale of the underworld vampires, I guess it's not too surprising. But any hope of chopping off her upper torso and giving her human legs is dead. But the bat body still has potential
That confirms an original idea I had that the Nagash kit would work well with this kit; I believe the scales are similar and that there is scope to fit the Nagash legs to this torso.
I think Nagash is probably too big. But the Bonereaper dude should work. He's pretty hefty. Alarielle has actual fleshy legs too, so there's another possibility
Is not serious yet you are paying quite a lot of attention to it.
Because it is fascinating to see the amazing mental hoops people will jump through to explain why man-vampires are female vampires and thus female vampire sculpts bad.
No, nobody said female vampire sculpts = bad.
Neferata = good.
Lauka Vai = good.
Female Blood Knight (Blood Lady?) = good.
Plate boob armor = dumb.
Ever heard about bikini armor in D&D and videogames? a similar thing here: instead of wearing too little protection, why would they wear "protection" detrimental to them?
Men don't go around with perfectly shaped armor for their crotches in fantasy settings (well, sometimes they do, in parody ones).
Is not serious yet you are paying quite a lot of attention to it.
Because it is fascinating to see the amazing mental hoops people will jump through to explain why man-vampires are female vampires and thus female vampire sculpts bad.
You really are desperate to accuse random people on the internet of sexism, aren't you?
No need to turn this into a political cesspool.
Yeah...because there aren't any models in either 40K or AoS that objectify men. I mean, think about all those muscley Fyreslayers, and all those Blood Angels with their rock hard abs.
Seriously, these debates over boob armor are dumb. Sex sells. Deal with it.
In an effort to change the conversation, she is massive. Or maybe the old skeletons are just small. Given the scale of the underworld vampires, I guess it's not too surprising. But any hope of chopping off her upper torso and giving her human legs is dead. But the bat body still has potential
I really don't understand the criticism. This sculpt looks fantastic to me.
In an effort to change the conversation, she is massive. Or maybe the old skeletons are just small. Given the scale of the underworld vampires, I guess it's not too surprising. But any hope of chopping off her upper torso and giving her human legs is dead. But the bat body still has potential
I really don't understand the criticism. This sculpt looks fantastic to me.
I don't have any issue with the model. But I like the idea of converting it even more.
Also, are we getting the cursed city models back? I'm not sure why else they'd have rules in the Battle tome. Underworlds, I get. They're intended to stick around
Also, are we getting the cursed city models back? I'm not sure why else they'd have rules in the Battle tome. Underworlds, I get. They're intended to stick around
I believe the original plans for Cursed City was for them to stick around as well. It's not really unusual as a fair number of the new models for Warhammer Quest (both AoS and 40K) received rules for the core games.
In an effort to change the conversation, she is massive. Or maybe the old skeletons are just small. Given the scale of the underworld vampires, I guess it's not too surprising. But any hope of chopping off her upper torso and giving her human legs is dead. But the bat body still has potential
Funny world we live, don't we? right now with REV, we have a little analogy with Lady Dimitrescu; inhumanly tall woman with a monster for legs.
Shouldn't it be for COVID, GW could've possibly coined that giant vampire mistress character that we are now going to run into aplenty from now on for some years.
She is on a 80 mm round base, so she covers a lot, but she is also on top of scenic ruins, creating the illusion of greater volume, just like Kragnos will do with his pride rock, but as a vampire, one can expect her to be taller than a regular human, and even more considering the special kind of Vampire she is; my question is: how big is she compared to Neferata?
Her alternate option as Bela's Dracula is just gold.
The fingertips of her wings are the parts that still scare the living gak out of me...
In an effort to change the conversation, she is massive. Or maybe the old skeletons are just small. Given the scale of the underworld vampires, I guess it's not too surprising. But any hope of chopping off her upper torso and giving her human legs is dead. But the bat body still has potential
What about the legs from the new keeper of secrets?
The more I look at her the more I think the bigger problem is in the jarring change of aesthetic at the waist. If her bottom half was armored up like the top, or the inverse, it would look a lot better. I am tempted to try it.
Also anyone else think GW had a partly designed humanoid without legs yet and a partly designed monster without a head yet then someone got drunk and said 'wait... PUT THEM TOGETHER!'
In that case they wouldn't have been "male torsos", just "torsos", and it would have still been nice to have other adornments for the chest armour.
Well, why even include the torsos? The platonic idea of a rider should suffice.
I can't find the sarcasm anywhere.
Why are they blood knight if they are vampire knights and not knights made of actual blood?
NinthMusketeer wrote: If I was getting a cavalry mini from another company for $12 it wouldn't be a nice and wouldn't come with as many options. Certainly not extra torsos. It seems a strange complaint to me. Like, why lose head/weapon options for extra torsos? Why add extra torsos over, say, alternate steed heads or different shields? Either would add far more visual diversity.
Because now we are forced to have four blokes and one gal in a single unit. What if I wanted to have a ratio of 3:2 instead? the diversity that one single metal bra brought to the table now is forcing people to buy more boxed, clip off boobies, or dig in chests and add boobies. Again, this does not happen with Chaos Knights and Warriors because you only need to slap a head on them, not plated boobs.
One single diversity piece caused a diversity paradox for people who wanted diversity on their plastic soldiers kit.
I think you're in luck. I'm fairly sure that there are 2 female blood knights in the box! And if there aren't? Well, there's at least 1 female unhelmeted head, and 1 female unhelmeted head, so you can put the female head you don't use on a male torso and boom, 2 female knights achieved!
quickfuze wrote: What about the legs from the new keeper of secrets?
Pretty sure they'll won't fit: KoS uses a base 2 cm larger. Hooves and stockings won't really fit either with a heavy armoured vampiress.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The more I look at her the more I think the bigger problem is in the jarring change of aesthetic at the waist. If her bottom half was armored up like the top, or the inverse, it would look a lot better. I am tempted to try it.
Also anyone else think GW had a partly designed humanoid without legs yet and a partly designed monster without a head yet then someone got drunk and said 'wait... PUT THEM TOGETHER!'
I'm on the fence with her, I do like her but I think having the bottom separated into a Vharg-whatevertheCursedCityWhargurwas or having her mounting a new monster was a better idea.
Rihgu wrote: I think you're in luck. I'm fairly sure that there are 2 female blood knights in the box! And if there aren't? Well, there's at least 1 female unhelmeted head, and 1 female unhelmeted head, so you can put the female head you don't use on a male torso and boom, 2 female knights achieved!
Then why did they bothered to add a boobplate to begin with?
Rihgu wrote: I think you're in luck. I'm fairly sure that there are 2 female blood knights in the box! And if there aren't? Well, there's at least 1 female unhelmeted head, and 1 female unhelmeted head, so you can put the female head you don't use on a male torso and boom, 2 female knights achieved!
My main complaint remains that they look too weedy relative to the bulkiness of the decorative bits on their armour.
But I guess a pro of that is that they're all androgynous enough to be female if you want them to be called female. Maybe they were going for a trans vibe with them.
Either way, not a fan. I like the horses but unless I can find different riders for them, meh, I'll think I'll pass for now.
KingGarland wrote: Quick question about the new battletome. When it is released does that mean that the old Legions of Nagash book will be no longer be legal for use?
Correct, Soulblight Gravelords are the replacement for Legions of Nagash.
KingGarland wrote: Quick question about the new battletome. When it is released does that mean that the old Legions of Nagash book will be no longer be legal for use?
We should be expecting an FAQ on the matter to clarify things. Technically speaking any warscrolls & allegiances that are updated would replace what is available in LoN, but items that are not would still be legal. For example, the Legion of Sacrament would still be playable from LoN, while for Legion of Night one would need to use the newer book. But I would expect the two-week FAQ to write out LoN entirely.
Neferata = good.
Lauka Vai = good.
Female Blood Knight (Blood Lady?) = good.
Plate boob armor = dumb.
Ever heard about bikini armor in D&D and videogames? a similar thing here: instead of wearing too little protection, why would they wear "protection" detrimental to them?
Men don't go around with perfectly shaped armor for their crotches in fantasy settings (well, sometimes they do, in parody ones).
Sure, but you know, that's how they are depicted as GW miniatures. Sisters of Battle are the same.
That's what I don't understand ; why the Blood Knights specifically while GW is doing the exact same thing for all female warriors wearing armor. It's not like it's something new - like oversized weapons, bigger hands and more "heroic" proportions.
KingGarland wrote: Quick question about the new battletome. When it is released does that mean that the old Legions of Nagash book will be no longer be legal for use?
We should be expecting an FAQ on the matter to clarify things. Technically speaking any warscrolls & allegiances that are updated would replace what is available in LoN, but items that are not would still be legal. For example, the Legion of Sacrament would still be playable from LoN, while for Legion of Night one would need to use the newer book. But I would expect the two-week FAQ to write out LoN entirely.
Legion of Grief, on the other hand...
We'll see. Arkhan the Black not being in the Soulblight Gravelords battletome makes sense, since he has nothing to do with vampires. And he's in the Ossiarch Bonereapers battletome.
Wouldn't be surprised if a new version of him appears in the next Ossiarch Bonereapers battletome coming in AoS 3rd editio, along with the obvious new archer unit.
As for Legion of Grief, they're part of the Nighthaunt battletome. Same for Black Coach. Reason why Terrorgheists and Dragon Zombies are still in is because the old kit wasn't replaced and still have components to have a "not blood knight" vampire lord instead of the abhorrent. That's not the case for Black Coach.
It's pretty clear GW wants to make Death have separate factions.
Neferata = good.
Lauka Vai = good.
Female Blood Knight (Blood Lady?) = good.
Plate boob armor = dumb.
Ever heard about bikini armor in D&D and videogames? a similar thing here: instead of wearing too little protection, why would they wear "protection" detrimental to them?
Men don't go around with perfectly shaped armor for their crotches in fantasy settings (well, sometimes they do, in parody ones).
Sure, but you know, that's how they are depicted as GW miniatures. Sisters of Battle are the same.
That's what I don't understand ; why the Blood Knights specifically while GW is doing the exact same thing for all female warriors wearing armor. It's not like it's something new - like oversized weapons, bigger hands and more "heroic" proportions.
I could be wrong, but I think part of the problem is that they're just not very nice looking models (though I'm sure some people are going to love them, "nice looking" is subjective obviously).
People are finding features like the boob plate or the lack of torso options more grating because the models as a whole just aren't that good.
Bat-centaur lady also has boob plate and I haven't noticed people complaining about that.
I think this is the only place where I've seen people express dissatisfaction with the Blood Knight sculpts. Everywhere else they've seemed to be received well.
They seem to be selling well too; OOS on GW, Element Games and my LGS. Same with Vauka Lai.
My main complaint remains that they look too weedy relative to the bulkiness of the decorative bits on their armour.
But I guess a pro of that is that they're all androgynous enough to be female if you want them to be called female. Maybe they were going for a trans vibe with them.
Either way, not a fan. I like the horses but unless I can find different riders for them, meh, I'll think I'll pass for now.
They are supposed to be sophisticated decadent aristocrats living on blood, yet blessed with superhuman Vampiric strenght -why would they bulk up like some brutish peasant?
Any indication a knight like this would be fit to engage in manual labour would make him or her the laughing stock of the clan.
Not sure what you were hoping for, but perhaps you could try some conversion with chaos knights, they are pretty buff.
My main complaint remains that they look too weedy relative to the bulkiness of the decorative bits on their armour.
But I guess a pro of that is that they're all androgynous enough to be female if you want them to be called female. Maybe they were going for a trans vibe with them.
Either way, not a fan. I like the horses but unless I can find different riders for them, meh, I'll think I'll pass for now.
They are supposed to be sophisticated decadent aristocrats living on blood, yet blessed with superhuman Vampiric strenght -why would they bulk up like some brutish peasant?
Any indication a knight like this would be fit to engage in manual labour would make him or her the laughing stock of the clan.
Not sure what you were hoping for, but perhaps you could try some conversion with chaos knights, they are pretty buff.
To be fair, most Blood Knights were knights before they became vampires so probably the most likely to be "buff" and at least one in Neferatas service is describing a huge hulking muscled woman easily able to be mistaken for a follower of Khorne.
Female vampires should be one the easiest for people to accept as warriors - no matter what they look like - they are superhumanly quick and strong....
My main complaint remains that they look too weedy relative to the bulkiness of the decorative bits on their armour.
But I guess a pro of that is that they're all androgynous enough to be female if you want them to be called female. Maybe they were going for a trans vibe with them.
Either way, not a fan. I like the horses but unless I can find different riders for them, meh, I'll think I'll pass for now.
They are supposed to be sophisticated decadent aristocrats living on blood, yet blessed with superhuman Vampiric strenght -why would they bulk up like some brutish peasant?
Any indication a knight like this would be fit to engage in manual labour would make him or her the laughing stock of the clan.
Not sure what you were hoping for, but perhaps you could try some conversion with chaos knights, they are pretty buff.
Vampires are magic, so I've always assumed they don't follow the normal rules of "do exercise, get buff".
I don't know if GW even has a fluff surrounding how that works. You have in other fiction that Vampires retain whatever musculature they had in their previous life as part of their eternal life / regenerating deal.
Given they're Blood *Knights*, they should be Knightly IMO, and Knights generally aren't weedy little things, they're warriors. I'd be happy with typical soldier-like proportions.
I'm not expecting something super beefy, but what we've got now just looks too svelte for a Knight. Like, I'm not expecting The Mountain from GoT, but these look scrawnier than Loras Tyrell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: To be fair, most Blood Knights were knights before they became vampires so probably the most likely to be "buff" and at least one in Neferatas service is describing a huge hulking muscled woman easily able to be mistaken for a follower of Khorne.
Female vampires should be one the easiest for people to accept as warriors - no matter what they look like - they are superhumanly quick and strong....
Of course, I think the slim female vampire is a perfectly fine aesthetic.
Slim blood Knights? Nah, not so much.
I think the comparatively bulky decorative bits on the armour and large horses make it worse, being skinny even with armour on just makes you look even more skinny. Armour isn't worn skin-tight after all.
Neferata = good.
Lauka Vai = good.
Female Blood Knight (Blood Lady?) = good.
Plate boob armor = dumb.
Ever heard about bikini armor in D&D and videogames? a similar thing here: instead of wearing too little protection, why would they wear "protection" detrimental to them?
Men don't go around with perfectly shaped armor for their crotches in fantasy settings (well, sometimes they do, in parody ones).
Sure, but you know, that's how they are depicted as GW miniatures. Sisters of Battle are the same.
That's what I don't understand ; why the Blood Knights specifically while GW is doing the exact same thing for all female warriors wearing armor. It's not like it's something new - like oversized weapons, bigger hands and more "heroic" proportions.
I could be wrong, but I think part of the problem is that they're just not very nice looking models (though I'm sure some people are going to love them, "nice looking" is subjective obviously).
People are finding features like the boob plate or the lack of torso options more grating because the models as a whole just aren't that good.
Bat-centaur lady also has boob plate and I haven't noticed people complaining about that.
Lots of people seemed to hate the bat-centaur. When they were shown, the Blood Knights definitely seemed to get a better reception.
Neferata = good.
Lauka Vai = good.
Female Blood Knight (Blood Lady?) = good.
Plate boob armor = dumb.
Ever heard about bikini armor in D&D and videogames? a similar thing here: instead of wearing too little protection, why would they wear "protection" detrimental to them?
Men don't go around with perfectly shaped armor for their crotches in fantasy settings (well, sometimes they do, in parody ones).
Sure, but you know, that's how they are depicted as GW miniatures. Sisters of Battle are the same.
That's what I don't understand ; why the Blood Knights specifically while GW is doing the exact same thing for all female warriors wearing armor. It's not like it's something new - like oversized weapons, bigger hands and more "heroic" proportions.
I could be wrong, but I think part of the problem is that they're just not very nice looking models (though I'm sure some people are going to love them, "nice looking" is subjective obviously).
People are finding features like the boob plate or the lack of torso options more grating because the models as a whole just aren't that good.
Bat-centaur lady also has boob plate and I haven't noticed people complaining about that.
Lots of people seemed to hate the bat-centaur. When they were shown, the Blood Knights definitely seemed to get a better reception.
Yeah, maybe a bad comparison, because the things people hate about the bat lady is the disconnect between the lower half and upper half. If you take the upper half of the bat lady she looks like a good model. By comparison I think the problem with the Blood Knights is bad proportions which IMO is maybe why people are taking issue with the boob plate more than I've seen levelled at other boob plate models.
If I don’t like a model, I hate it, all other GW minis are equally bad, most people agree with me and I can objectively prove why it’s a bad mini.
I mean does it matter what “people” like or don’t like? Does your opinion depend on what you think “people” think. By all means express your opinion but don’t be telling what “people” think of a mini as if my opinion should be swayed by the peers pressure.
If I don’t like a model, I hate it, all other GW minis are equally bad, most people agree with me and I can objectively prove why it’s a bad mini.
I mean does it matter what “people” like or don’t like? Does your opinion depend on what you think “people” think. By all means express your opinion but don’t be telling what “people” think of a mini as if my opinion should be swayed by the peers pressure.
I don't really understand the point of your post. I'm not telling you what to think, I'm trying to figure out why people feel a certain way. We do this with art all the time. People are still talking about what is evocative about the works of Caravaggio, Michaelangelo, da Vanci, etc.
Unless you're talking about the folk who imply that not liking a particular female sculpt automatically makes you a sexist, in which case, sure, that's genuinely peer pressure that I'd be happy to see die.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: People hate both the bat-centaur lady and the bat-centaur dude equally, perhaps the guy even more
Yeah, the actual vampire part of the model looks pretty good. And the bat part of the model also looks pretty good.
Yeah, the actual vampire part of the model looks pretty good. And the bat part of the model also looks pretty good.
It's joining the two together that's the problem.
This.
I recall seeing a photoshop a while back that took the Sister walker legs and stuck them to the lower half of the Vamp-Taur Lady's torso instead of the monster bit. And it looks good. Giant Vampire Lady. (Hmm, where have we seen that recently?)
And the monster bit, I suppose if you replaced the Vamp torso with like, a Terrorgheist neck and head or something similar to the Vargskyrwotsit it would look good as well.
The two together are...questionable. It honestly feels like they were done as seperate pieces and then muddled up as a short notice idea.
Yeah, the actual vampire part of the model looks pretty good. And the bat part of the model also looks pretty good.
It's joining the two together that's the problem.
This.
I recall seeing a photoshop a while back that took the Sister walker legs and stuck them to the lower half of the Vamp-Taur Lady's torso instead of the monster bit. And it looks good. Giant Vampire Lady. (Hmm, where have we seen that recently?)
And the monster bit, I suppose if you replaced the Vamp torso with like, a Terrorgheist neck and head or something similar to the Vargskyrwotsit it would look good as well.
The two together are...questionable. It honestly feels like they were done as seperate pieces and then muddled up as a short notice idea.
At first glance it looked like someone photoshopped it as a joke.
Maybe if the bottom part was at least painted with the same colour as the armour it'd look a bit better? I dunno.
But the upper part by itself definitely had me thinking about conversion options until I saw it was too big to mix with normal legs.
Yeah, you'd have to find proportionately bigger legs (hence the SoB Palantine walker) - the Big Lady could well work as a Vampire basically swollen up with raw power without going all Yiffcon as seems to be their logic now.
It's a shame. Both parts look good, combined they look awful.
If I don’t like a model, I hate it, all other GW minis are equally bad, most people agree with me and I can objectively prove why it’s a bad mini.
I mean does it matter what “people” like or don’t like? Does your opinion depend on what you think “people” think. By all means express your opinion but don’t be telling what “people” think of a mini as if my opinion should be swayed by the peers pressure.
I don't really understand the point of your post. I'm not telling you what to think, I'm trying to figure out why people feel a certain way. We do this with art all the time. People are still talking about what is evocative about the works of Caravaggio, Michaelangelo, da Vanci, etc.
Unless you're talking about the folk who imply that not liking a particular female sculpt automatically makes you a sexist, in which case, sure, that's genuinely peer pressure that I'd be happy to see die.
.
O no, I wasn’t referring to that. I was more talking about the people who say, ‘lots of people don’t like’ this or that mini, rather than, ‘I don’t like this mini’, as if they’re the spokesperson of the masses instead of just expressing their own view.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: O no, I wasn’t referring to that. I was more talking about the people who say, ‘lots of people don’t like’ this or that mini, rather than, ‘I don’t like this mini’, as if they’re the spokesperson of the masses instead of just expressing their own view.
So it's mostly a semantic complaint? Would it be okay if we said "several people" instead of "lots"?
We make much extrapolation, if a handful of people on a forum don't like something, it's not unreasonable to guess there's hundreds if not thousands of people in the broader community that don't like it.
Wrongly or rightly we make assumptions about how much a model is liked or disliked based on comments we hear and read, I wouldn't read too much into it, nor take it as a sign of peer pressure.
It's pretty clear looking here, Facebook, TGA and anywhere that the reaction to Lauka Vai's model is mixed. Doing the pedantic "you don't speak for everyone!!!" defence doesn't change that there's been no lack of discussion about her (and the Lord version) of which a great deal of it wasn't positive, especially in comparison to the initial Soulblight reveal.
Arbitrator wrote: It's pretty clear looking here, Facebook, TGA and anywhere that the reaction to Lauka Vai's model is mixed. Doing the pedantic "you don't speak for everyone!!!" defence doesn't change that there's been no lack of discussion about her (and the Lord version) of which a great deal of it wasn't positive, especially in comparison to the initial Soulblight reveal.
A great deal of it WAS positive as well. Many people, myself included, praised the model for trying to do something interesting rather than just being another generic undead-esque fantasy monster with a rider.
It's almost the exact inverse of Belakor where a great deal of the discussion was positive but there was a significant camp calling him generic or uninspired.
It's almost like...people...think different things about stuff?!?
Nobody really questions whether it could exist - Warhammer has a massive range of various centaury things - just that it looks poor. Had hoped it would grow on me over time as the two separate elements are largely great - ornate vampirey armour, creepy batdragon - but the lacklustre combination continues to be jarring.
It's important to realise that not everyone who comments (positive and negative) on a model is a customer for that model and/or the army its within.
I'd also say that for any physical product its important to balance impressions both with photos but also with real life interactions with a model. There are some models that look awesome, but you get them in your hand and you don't like it - and vis versa.
I would say that dropping a whole army over one optional model is somewhat hyperbolic, but I can appreciate that if you were already on the fence then it might be enough to help you justify making a choice; just like one super awesome model might make you swing into the positive. In both cases its not so much just that one model, its the whole "glass half full/empty" angle where you are on the line and just need convincing to tip one way or the other.
I do think that on Dakka we CAN get drawn into long arguments/debates on liking and hating things, often because there is a somewhat negative lean online in general (and on Dakka) so the positive people tend to push back a little harder from time to time even when the negative comments are purely personal opinions and not framed in debate or argument
In the end every model will have fans and haters for whatever reasons. In the end our impressions of a model can change through time; in the end most armies have enough choice within them to avoid a few models and never use them if you really hate them
And in the end this is Warhammer, if you don't like it, then grab the base size and some bits and get to converting!
I think it goes without saying that someone somewhere is going to like damned near any model. If you are that person, its both nothing to be ashamed of nor should you feel peer pressure to dislike it just because other people do. But there's definitely some janky models out there that wouldn't rank highly if we did a poll. I reckon those Blood Knights and Batcentaur-Lady would be pretty low on the list if we did a survey.
Aesthetics is subjective, but there are definitely objective features you can point to and say why on a whole a certain model will be more or less liked.
It would be great if Radukar is up for next week as he looks far more badass than his Cursed City model.
Lauka is definitely a kitbashing opportunity for two separate models. Lauka could still be a monster with alternative demon legs and wings from her back, while the other part of the model just needs a suitable monster head. What head that would be I'm not sure, but it might be passable as a zombie dragon battleline, if going for that blood line? Hero character and battleline monster in a box?
Her form could be seen as a cruel curse by Tzeentch, which he takes delight in mocking; she has wings but cannot take flight, like a bat that must forever crawl upon the ground.
The Crimson Court is a good way to get four alternative Vampire lords for little more than the price of the standard Lord model. They would be ideal as a hero party for use in AoS:HOTHL and can't wait to give that a whirl...
At first I winced at the price of the Deathrattle Skeletons kit, but the sprues are quite big and there is four of them. Its technically two battleline units in a single box, so if starting out small one can just add a Wight King for £10.
SamusDrake wrote: Her form could be seen as a cruel curse by Tzeentch, which he takes delight in mocking; she has wings but cannot take flight, like a bat that must forever crawl upon the ground.
The warscroll for Lauka Vai has the 'FLY' keyword.
SamusDrake wrote: Her form could be seen as a cruel curse by Tzeentch, which he takes delight in mocking; she has wings but cannot take flight, like a bat that must forever crawl upon the ground.
The warscroll for Lauka Vai has the 'FLY' keyword.
Oh, I haven't seen her warscroll yet. I was taking her model at face value and have trouble visualising how she would take flight.
She leaps from Tactical Rock to Tactical Rock to Citadel Swirly Bull Gak, which seem to nearly entirely cover every single battleground in Age of Sigmar nowadays.
Hmm. Wight King up for pre-order next week, and temporarily locked in a Start Collecting set with 5 Black Knights and 20 Grave Guard. Good if you want to start the army in earnest, but a bit dirty for those who just want that fantastic new sculpt.
Tim the Biovore wrote: Hmm. Wight King up for pre-order next week, and temporarily locked in a Start Collecting set with 5 Black Knights and 20 Grave Guard. Good if you want to start the army in earnest, but a bit dirty for those who just want that fantastic new sculpt.
Pre-Orders next week are a massive FU from GW it seems.
The absolute massive balls on the man who decided to start relasing Cursed City miniatures, without the Cursed City, with absolutely no news on Cursed City
Oh hey, look, direct only Radukar's court from Cursed City. I know we said it was all sold out but...uh...surprise?
Not too surprised by that, as I'd latched onto a rumour that the sculpts would be back as direct only sets, it's the lack of adventurers to go with it that stings a little (though they could always come at a later date)
Still, rather brazen all the same, gonna have to assume the game is well and truly over now.
skeleton wrote: im in doubt for the monster/bat vampires
it has to manny arms or wings. it looks more like a spider this way. but the halfs apart look good
It does seem like the wing-hand is an alternate build for Annika. As iirc the original teaser has her holding the mask in that hand which looks so much better.
Phew that's a big release week! Not just the second vampire stuff but Mechanicus and a load of other stuff too!!
Very happy to see the vampire CC models back, hope we might see the other side reappear at some stage. Direct order only is a little odd, but fits with GW likely having no boxes for them having originally planned for them to be in CC boxed sets for a while yet. So going direct order only means they can keep them in the Direct Order White Boxes. Esp since GW has been toning down their direct only end.
Overall looking great and nice to see a lot of stuff coming.
Note for the Weight King I'd imagine he will remain in the getting started set for a long time as an exclusive. Just the same as the new Chaos leader in that set (though I'm still surprised GW hasn't released new warrior and knight kits on their own)
"Oh you'll get over a company lying to your face and deleting evidence for the fact they're lying and not adressing the fact they were lying when confronted with direct evidence, just consume more product and get excited for new product"
Tim the Biovore wrote: Hmm. Wight King up for pre-order next week, and temporarily locked in a Start Collecting set with 5 Black Knights and 20 Grave Guard. Good if you want to start the army in earnest, but a bit dirty for those who just want that fantastic new sculpt.
Pre-Orders next week are a massive FU from GW it seems.
Oh hey, look, direct only Radukar's court from Cursed City. I know we said it was all sold out but...uh...surprise?
Ah yes. Cc was just models. Nothing else in the box but plastlc models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: The absolute massive balls on the man who decided to start relasing Cursed City miniatures, without the Cursed City, with absolutely no news on Cursed City
What news you expect? How often gw needs to say it's sold out? You know right gw doesn't keep repeating ad infinum sold out items. Ymu seen mentions of dogs of war models being sold out in recent times?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Personally i feel insulted by them relasing the miniatures separately, without still adressing the tabletop game itself being bloody gone.
Uuuh...they said already it's sold out. Just because you don't like answer doesn't mean they didn't address it
They don't owe you an explanation for anything, especially with how much like spoiled brats the community at large has behaved of late.
So, people are spoiled brats because they demand GW to at the bare minimum acknowledge the fact that they promised a product will be a permanent part of the range, and then silently backtracked on it and deleted the evidence for the fact they've said it, and never explained anything and pretend nothing happened?
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: "Oh you'll get over a company lying to your face and deleting evidence for the fact they're lying and not adressing the fact they were lying when confronted with direct evidence, just consume more product and get excited for new product"
Mistakes happen. One promotion guy made nistake saying limited product isn't limited. Mistakes happen. get over. Note it wasn'w even official source saying. Fb team words arent always correct nor does that team even have all the info
They don't owe you an explanation for anything, especially with how much like spoiled brats the community at large has behaved of late.
So, people are spoiled brats because they demand GW to at the bare minimum acknowledge the fact that they promised a product will be a permanent part of the range, and then silently backtracked on it and deleted the evidence for the fact they've said it, and never explained anything and pretend nothing happened?
They don't owe you an explanation for anything, especially with how much like spoiled brats the community at large has behaved of late.
So, people are spoiled brats because they demand GW to at the bare minimum acknowledge the fact that they promised a product will be a permanent part of the range, and then silently backtracked on it and deleted the evidence for the fact they've said it, and never explained anything and pretend nothing happened?
GW is only answerable to their shareholders, not some random posters on the internet.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: "Oh you'll get over a company lying to your face and deleting evidence for the fact they're lying and not adressing the fact they were lying when confronted with direct evidence, just consume more product and get excited for new product"
Mistakes happen. One promotion guy made nistake saying limited product isn't limited. Mistakes happen. get over. Note it wasn'w even official source saying. Fb team words arent always correct nor does that team even have all the info
In that case they could at the bare bloody minimum say it was a mistake, instead of y'know, silently deleting every single comment in which they said it's not a limited part of the range after it sold out, and pretending they never existed?
Jacob29 wrote: Also why can you buy Radukar the Wolf on his own???
He has literally 0 gameplay value on his own...
Because he's the only one that has a separate sprue from the get-go. Like the boss from BSF, its so much easier for them to repack and sell.
Also, GW, please don't go the Indomitus route and release the Cursed City baddies for $100+. I get that people are spending that much to buy them on ebay, but please no
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Personally i feel insulted by them relasing the miniatures separately, without still adressing the tabletop game itself being bloody gone.
These two kits were going to be released anyway, regardless of whether CC was discontinued or not, as some( all? ) have rules in the new Soulblight battletome. That would have been insulting to have the rules but not the models...
As for Cursed City I doubt anyone has let GW off the hook for that debacle.
They don't owe you an explanation for anything, especially with how much like spoiled brats the community at large has behaved of late.
So, people are spoiled brats because they demand GW to at the bare minimum acknowledge the fact that they promised a product will be a permanent part of the range, and then silently backtracked on it and deleted the evidence for the fact they've said it, and never explained anything and pretend nothing happened?
You're completely in the right in the assertion as it was done extremely poorly and would have been understandable if they came out with an frank statement acknowledging why a heavily marketed continuous run boxset suddenly went poof after the predictable initial run sellout. The deletion etc., coupled with the intentional expansion sets and now them being released as a 'direct only' sale, does make one feel that the whole Cursed City project didn't exactly go to plan on their end.
Would also help if Radukar and the bad guys lot were not direct only allowing for third party discounts which would at least mitigate some of the ire associated with the boxset being sold out and not available anymore.
I like how Volga and Raddy the Beast have additional models incorporated onto their bases. Really makes them feel more integrated into the army as a whole for me. The more I look at these four vampire sculpts the more I like them. From Volga's unique clothing aesthetic to how freakishly gaunt Annika is, I think there were a lot of excellent choices made in those designs.
They don't owe you an explanation for anything, especially with how much like spoiled brats the community at large has behaved of late.
So, people are spoiled brats because they demand GW to at the bare minimum acknowledge the fact that they promised a product will be a permanent part of the range, and then silently backtracked on it and deleted the evidence for the fact they've said it, and never explained anything and pretend nothing happened?
GW is only answerable to their shareholders, not some random posters on the internet.
2016 showed everyone how closely those two are actually linked.
Wonder how big the Wight King ends up being compared to the older plastics he's forced to be accompanied by for the foreseeable future (c'mon GW...). Difficult to tell from the pic, which is probably photoshopped anyway.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: The absolute massive balls on the man who decided to start relasing Cursed City miniatures, without the Cursed City, with absolutely no news on Cursed City
They even seem to have purposefully not referred to the name "Cursed City", which they still used in the fluff bits for the characters when they were first mentioned in their respective articles. Or maybe I'm imagining things.
indeed 2 in your dz, 2 outside.
